Active euthanasia and passive euthanasia are different in the way killing is different from letting die. Doctors today condone passive euthanasia but reject the idea of its counterpart. If a person on life support does not want to "endure the unendurable" , they have no choice but to live out their sentence. Theologians think that a human life is in itself a valuable thing than it is morally wrong to shorten it. What is not in the equation is when a person is in constant suffering in which the patient is going to die anyways. Doctors aren't required to save every life and can choose not to employ life-saving treatments to a patient. The discernment between ordinary and extra ordinary treatment and the different between foreseeable and intentional killing is at the forefront of this debate. If foreseeable and intentional killing are equal morally and foreseeable is condoned, then any withdrawing of life support would never be permitted. The standard position on euthanasia is that it is sometimes permissible to let someone die and it is never permissible to kill. This essay will state that it is not even permissible to let someone die.
             James Rachel published an essay describing the acts of two people, namely, Smith and Jones. Smith drowns his nephew in a bath for inheritance while Jones stands by as his nephew drowns in the bath. The only difference in these acts is killing and letting die.
             1. The only difference between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia is the bare difference between killing and letting die.
             2. The only difference between the acts of Smith and Jones is the bare difference between killing and letting die.
             3. The acts of Smith and Jones are equally immoral.
             4. Thus killing and letting die are morally equivalent.
             5. Therefore, active euthanasia and passive euthanasia are morally equivalent.
             One could now interject by saying that thi
             ...