James Rachels argues that there is no moral difference between killing a patient (active…

James Rachels argues that there is no moral difference between killing a patient (active euthanasia) and allowing them to die (passive euthanasia) if one’s only motive is mercy.
Which of the following arguments does NOT show that active euthanasia differs from passive euthanasia in so many ways that makes active euthanasia clearly wrong?
Group of answer choices
In performing active euthanasia, the doctor disregards the fundamental role of the doctor as defined by the Hippocratic tradition: preservation of life while providing the best care. Active euthanasia violates this principle in a way that passive euthanasia does not.
Acts of commission (here, killing) always involve greater culpability than acts of omission (such as allowing to die).
In active euthanasia the intent is the death of the patient, even if undertaken from a motive of compassion. In passive euthanasia, the intent is to avoid subjecting the patient to excessively burdensome, ineffectual treatment.
In active euthanasia, the concern is with quality of life, the assumption being that when it goes beneath a certain level, life is no longer worth living. In passive euthanasia the concern is with quality of care, which at times entails providing only palliative care.