2.3A- Euthanasia Flashcards
(9 cards)
The sanctity of life
-People who believe in the sanctity of life believe that life is special, sacred, and holy, and that it has intrinsic worth.
-Often people who believe in the sanctity of life hold this belief for religious reasons. They might believe that life is sacred because it is a gift from God, and/or because people are made in the image of God.
-Non-religious people might believe that human life is sacred because people have reason and free will.
-Some people believe that all life is sacred, not only human life.
-The Bible can be used to support the view that human life has sanctity, for example “so God created mankind in his own image.”
-The Bible can also be used to question ideas about the sanctity of life, for example on different occasions when God commands war.
-The idea that life is sacred can be used as an argument against euthanasia, on the grounds that no one has the right to take away human life.
-The ‘slippery slope’ argument can be used in the context of the sanctity of life, saying that once life is considered to be less tjan sacred in some cases, it undermines all human dignity and allows people to be treated as disposable.
-It can be argued that the sanctity of life is not an unbreakable moral rule but that it can sometimes be moral to take life, doe example killing someone who is murderously aggressive in order to ave many others, or sacrificing one’s own life in order to save others.
Quality of life
-Ideas about quality of life are often introduced into debates about euthanasia, sometimes as a counter-argument to ‘sanctity of life’ beliefs.
-The concept of quality of life involves consdering how much enjoyment and fulfilment a person is getting given their state of physical and mental health. It includes looking to the future and the prognosis for their condition.
-Disucssions about quality of life consdier whether the life is worth living, or whether bringing about death would be preferable.
-Some people argue that if someone has a debilitating or painful terminal condition then they should not be compelled to live until they die naturally.
-Quality of life is commonly considered in cases of animal welfare, where it is considered by many to be cruel not to euthanise a suffering animal.
Personhood
-Issues of personhood involve the question of what makes a living thing a ‘person’. The issue is important because if a living thing is not a person, perhaps it does not have the same rights, including the right to life, as persons do.
-Some argue that in order to be a person, there must be awareness of self and others, and ability to interact with the world.
-Others argue that in order to be a person, the only thing necessary is to be human.
-Others argued that other speicies as well as human beings should be considered as persons, or that personhood is a sliding scale rather than a strict either/or distinction.
-Personhood is usally linked to capacities and functions. This raises issues about whether a foetus is a person, whether someone with severe brain-damage or lack of brian development is a person, and whether higher-functioning animals such as primates might be persons.
-The question of potential is also an issue of personhood, raising discussion of whether a living thing should be accorded dignity and rights because of what it has the potential to become, or conversely, whether rights should be withdraen if there is clearly no potential for higher-level function.
Voluntary euthanasia
-The ancient Greek Hippocratic oath, which still informs medical standards for today, obliges doctors to do good and avoid evil.
-Voluntary euthanasia is when a patient’s life is ended at their own request. It is illegal in the UK but legal in some other countries.
-It is often the focus for legal challenges when people in very difficult circumstances challenge the law and ask that someone should be allowed to help them die without fear of prosecution.
-Glover discusses the issues in his book published in 1977.
-A key argument in favour in favour of voluntary euthanasia is that people should have the right to avoid pain and should be able to choose a gentle, painless death as long as the decision is made rationally.
-Some people argue in favour of voluntary euthanasia because suicide is an option for able-bodied people and it is discriminatory not to allow it for disabled people.
-Some argue against voluntary euthanasia because the person might change thier mind when they are no longer able to communicate.
-Some argue that allowing voluntary euthanasia will encourage unscrupulous people to put pressure on sick relatives to end their lives when this was not what they wanted.
-The ‘slippery slope’ argument is the view that if something is allowed in exceptional circumstances, it begins a process which becomes impossible to stop and the situation will get out of hand.
-Some also argue that it puts doctors and other health professionals in an impossible position.
Non-voluntary euthanasia
-This is when there is euthanasia without the request of the patient.
-It could happen in cases of severe brain-damage, or when a baby is born with multiple problems, or when someone is incapable of communication.
-Debates arise when there are cases of people who cannot communicate and who seem to be permanetly incapable of functioning on ways that might give them an acceptable quality of life.
-Medical science has progressed to the extent that people with severe loss of brain function can be kepy alive artificially for a long time.
-Some people write ‘living wills’ to clarify their wishes if they should become brain-damaged snd incapable of communicating.
-Some argue that non-volutnary euthanasia is the most compassionate course of action when there is no prospect of the patient having an acceptable standard of brian function.
-Others argue that it is not for us to decide what is an acceptable standard of brain function; that it a decision that should be left to God.
-Some who oppose non-voluntary euthanasia argue that there is never a point where medical professionals can be totally certain that there is no hope of improvement.
-A distinction is often made between deliberate active euthanasia (doing something to bring about a death) and a non-treatment decision: i.e. the removal of ‘extraordinary’ treatment (such as performing a surgical operation that has very little chance of success.) However, people do not agree about what kinds of treatment might be considered ‘extraordinary’.
Applying ethical theories to euthanasia: Natural Law
-In Natural Law ethics, an action is morally good if it accords with eternal law, divine law, natural law, and human law.
-There is a primary precept to do good and avoid evil, and a primary precept to preserve life.
-Human life is considered to be a sacred gift from God. Divine law teaches in the Bible that God creates each individual person in his own image (Imago Dei).
-Natural Law ethics have been very influential on Catholic teaching, which says that euthanasia is wrong. It contravenes the precept of preserving life.
-Euthanasia is apparent good- it seems to offer a good outcome, but it is not a real good.
-Natural law ethics are absolutist: they do not make exceptions for different circumstances or different likely outcomes.
-There is no obligation under natural law for people to go to great lengths to keep someone alive whn the treatment offered is ‘burdensome’ and not meaningful.
-The doctrine of double effect could be used in end-of-life care, where the treatment offered to relive someone’s pain might have the double effect of shortening life. The intention would not be to kill, but to relieve pain, and therefore this would not be wrong.
-It could be argued that if the patient is so debilitated that they lack all the higher functions, such as reason, associated with personhood, then the rules about how persons should be treated might not apply.
Possible advantages and disadvantages of a Natural Law approach to euthanasia
-It gives clear guidance; there is no doubt about what to do and what not to do.
-It respects religious beliefs about the sanctity of life.
-It does not leave people vulnerable to unscrupulous relatives who might wish to benefit for their deaths.
-It avoids a ‘slippery slope’ where human dignity becomes less important over time.
-It could be seen as unsympathetic to people in great pain or with no quality of life.
-Medical advances make it difficult to judge whether some kinds of treatment should be regarded as burdensome or extraordinary. Life support, for example, is both common and extraordinary, as are many restriction techniques.
Applying ethical theories to euthanasia: Situation Ethics
-Fletcher, the leading advocate of Situation Ethics, was in favour of legalised euthanasia. He became president of the Euthanasia Society of America.
-Situation ethics rejects absolute rules, and so it rejects an absolute ban on euthanasia.
-Fletcher thought that the ethical thing to do was to take account of each individual’s personal situation.
-Situation ethics advocates applying the ‘rule of love’. The ethical thing to do is whatever will bring about the most loving consequences. Euthanasia can be justified if it will bring about the most loving outcome for the patient and their friends and family.
-Fletcher thought the quality of life was more important than the sanctity of life was not worth living if the patient did not have some basic functions, such as a minimla intellgience, self-awareness and ability to judge the passage of time.
Possible advantagesand disadvantages of a situation ethics approach to euthanasia
-It could be seen as far more compassionate in individual situations than a blanket ban on euthanasia, recognising that many people would like to have this option available to them.
-It could be seen as less discriminatory towards disable people.
-It places greater emphasis on human autonomy.
-It could be criticised as not giving recognition to the sacred nature of human life.
-The most loving course of action is not always easy to identify.
-Allowing euthanasia on a case-by-case basis makes legislation difficult.
-Legalising euthanasia might create a ‘slippery slope’ where people are euthanasied when it might not be what they really wanted or they might have had a chance of recovery.
