Mmm, after reading that we might need to take a step back here, as it seems we may be discussing slightly different things?

To me that paper seemed to be making a case for active euthanasia, stating that it is negligibly different morally from active euthanasia.

I looked up the definitions of active and passive euthanasia and found that active euthanasia is giving a patient drugs that will end their life, whereas passive is simply withholding treatment (at the patient’s request, of course). Now I’m a bit confused, because by that definition passive euthanasia is already legal. In the US, patients over the age of 18 already have the right to refuse treatment of any kind, even if it will result in imminent death.

I was trying to argue that I don’t think a provider who has no moral problem with giving the patient euthanasia drugs would simultaneously have a moral problem with injecting said drugs themselves. I thought this was passive vs active euthanasia, but it turns out that both of these would technically be active.

So, uhh, I’m not really sure where this leaves us lol. Any thoughts?