Moral Distinctions between Passive and Active Euthanasia

Morally speaking, what distinguishes passive from active euthanasia? Is there even a moral distinction? Before we can answer these questions, it will serve us well to get a sense of what either type of euthanasia involves. Euthanasia is often termed 'mercy killing' or 'assisted suicide.' It is the intentional ending of a patient’s life to ease his pain and suffering (typically caused by some terminal illness). Euthanasia can be classified as passive or active. Passive euthanasia involves withholding common treatments (drugs, operations, respirators etc.) necessary for a patient to continue living. Active euthanasia, on the other hand, involves the use of lethal substances or forces (e.g. a lethal injection) to kill the patient. The prima facie distinction between active and passive euthanasia is that the former involves killing a patient, while the latter involves letting the patient die. Thus, some philosophers suggest that by asking whether there is a moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia, we are really asking whether there is a moral distinction between ‘killing’ and 'letting die.' With that said, solving this age-old 'killing' versus ‘letting die’ moral dilemma is far beyond the scope of this paper. However, I believe we need not fully resolve the dilemma in order to gain insight into the moral differences between active and passive euthanasia.