Smith, Jones and Euthanasia

 Smith, Jones and Euthanasia

The Smith and Jones ethical question is one which illustrates the moral difference, or the lack thereof, between killing and letting die. It is a scenario where both Smith and Jones would receive a large inheritance if their cousin hypothetically passed away, this is a sufficient enough reason for Smith to actively go out an murder his cousin by drowning him in the bathtub. On the other hand, Jones also has the same intention and actively goes out to drown his cousin but has the fortunate situation where his cousin, right in front of him, drowns by himself, although Jones had the intention of drowning his cousin if he so happened to get out of the water, but having not killed his cousin, Jones does not feel morally responsible for what has just happened. 

This ethical question presented in the article “Active and Passive Euthanasia” by James Rachels (1) thus presents the scenario that if we consider killing and letting die as morally different then we have to confront the fact that Smith acted worse than Jones, but the question is meant to illustrate that despite Smith supposedly acting morally worse than Jones we do not feel nor consider as if they had acted differently, but rather that their actions carried the same moral weight. This ethical scenario is meant to demonstrate that there is in fact no moral difference between killing and letting die which is later used to reevaluate the medical position regarding active and passive euthanasia. 

The Smith and Jones moral example is a valuable philosophical thought experiment which makes us question the underlying assumptions in our moral reasoning in regards to the difference between killing and letting die. This ethical dilemma is especially relevant in the medical field where the current oath physicians have to take goes in direct opposition to what the Smith and Jones situation attempts to demonstrate, that is, the lack of moral difference between killing and letting die. This goes in stark opposition to the ethical standards of the medical field as shown in the AMA policy statement where it says that the “intentional termination of a life of one human being by another” is strictly prohibited but it denies, as Rachels puts it, that the “cessation of treatment is the intentional termination of a life”. 

The oath in question is that of the Hippocratic oath whereby the individual must swear “to do no harm or injustice to them (their patients)” as well as to “not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor to advise such a plan” (2). What this does is effectively prohibit any form of active euthanasia which is defined as: “when death is brought about by an act” - such as when someone is given a lethal dose of drugs. It does not, however, prohibit passive euthanasia which is defined as: “when death is brought about by an omission” - for example by withholding treatment (3). 

The Smith and Jones example is of utmost relevance to the topic of active and passive euthanasia because if the Smith and Jones scenario proves the moral equivalence between killing and letting die what Rachels has effetively done in his essay is prove that active euthanasia in the case of a terminally ill patient is a morally superior action to take over letting the patient die since we have asserted that from a consequentialist point of view the act of witholding treatment is ethically equivalent to killing the person and thus in the scenario of active euthanasia we are eliminating the pain the patient will have to go through until their inevitable death. So holding the consequences equal, that is death, in one scenario we are letting the patient die with dignity and without pain while in the other scenario we are allowing the patient go through an insufferable amount of pain until their inevitable death. Rachels although providing some counter argument in his essay to his position, notwithstanding, holds that the former option is not only morally equivalent but morally superior to passive euthanasia by eliminating the need for pointless suffering.

References

(1) || Rachels, James. (9 January, 1975). “Active and Passive Euthanasia”. Retrieved from: https://canvas.stir.ac.uk/courses/7754/pages/session-2

(2) || North, Michael. (7 February, 2012). “Greek Medicine”. Retrieved from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html

(3) || BBC. (-). “Forms of Euthanasia”. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/forms.shtml#:~:text=Active%20euthanasia%20is%20when%20death,someone%20lets%20the%20person%20die.