2. …show more content…
Beauchamp and Childress find that Rachels’ analysis is troubling and inaccurate because they see there being a genuine moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. Addtionally, they see Rachels’ comparisons as invalid due to his views and the treatment envisioned by AMA being immensely dissimilar; therefore, Rachels’ comparisons cannot be used as support. (The AMA does not focus on the morality difference between letting someone die and killing, but instead that justified actions in medicine limit procedures to being only passive.) Finally, Beauchamp and Childress, agree that morality may not be a deciding factor; nonetheless, they do not agree that this is always the case, some instances may exist when morality is an