Volume 5, Issue 7 (29 2013)                   ijme 2013, 5(7): 15-29 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Tavakoli G. Euthanasia: the difference between act and quit. ijme. 2013; 5 (7) :15-29
URL: http://ijme.tums.ac.ir/article-1-82-en.html
1Assistant Professor Department of Philosophy, Isfahan University, Isfahan, Iran. , tavacoly@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (4885 Views)

Euthanasia has been the subject of much controversy during the last three decades. In ethics most philosophers divide it into active and passive euthanasia and consider the first option to be immoral. There are some thinkers, however, who deny any moral significance in such a distinction. Among them and perhaps the first in this arena is James Rachels who is followed by other thinkers like Jonathan Bennett and Michael Tooley. Rachels poses his equivalence theory. By this he means that assuming the stability of other factors in a given circumstance and focusing on the variable of act and omission alone we would find that there is no moral difference between the two. He tries to defend his theory by the way of parallel examples and parity of reasons. We are going to evaluate his arguments by explaining and then criticizing them. In this regard we will examine briefly some counter-examples, and then we will have a look at some answers of other philosophers like Philippa Foot and Will Cartwright. We try to assess these refutations and finally we are going to offer two answers in the hope that these answers solve the problem.

Full-Text [PDF 217 kb]   (1994 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research |
Accepted: 2013/06/18 | Published: 2013/10/28

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
Write the security code in the box

Send email to the article author

© 2017 All Rights Reserved | Iranian Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb