euthanasia 1 Flashcards
(9 cards)
what is sanctity of life and does it have any any meaning in twenty- first century medical ethics
idea that life is intrinsically sacred or has such worth that is is not consider within the power of a human being
Humans were created in God’s image, further suggesting that human life is especially valuable
yes
the sanctity of life is often invoked to ensure that patients receive appropriate and compassionate care, especially at the end of life. This is particularly important in an ageing population where more people are living with chronic conditions and require palliative care.
informs debates around social justice issues such as the death penalty and euthanasia. Advocates for the sanctity of life argue that these practices violate the inherent dignity and value of human life.
no
people should have rights over there own body - js mill ‘over his own mind and body the person is sovereign’
- The sanctity of life can also be at odds with other ethical principles, such as the promotion of individual autonomy and the alleviation of suffering, particularly in cases where a person’s quality of life is severely diminished due to illness or disability
what is quality of life
a way of weighing the extrinsic experience of life , that affects or justifies whether or not it is worth continuing life.
attributes of quality of life -
for
Personhood is tied to cognitive abilities, and those who have lost these abilities due to illness or injury no longer possess personhood.
Denying euthanasia to those who no longer possess personhood can prolong their suffering and cause undue harm.
It is more compassionate to allow individuals to choose when and how they want to end their suffering, rather than forcing them to endure unbearable pain and discomfort
is situation ethics helpful to Euthanasia
agape love - Hence we may choose to allow euthanasia if someone is in severe pain and is terminally ill but we may not allow euthanasia if it becomes clear that someone might recover and that their request
for euthanasia is due to temporary mental illness or in the case of non-voluntary euethanasia lack the capacity to make decisions
principle of situation ethics is personalism. This means that the human being is put at the centre of the decision and concern for the persons well there is crucial – Fletcher believes people are more important than rules
one common criticism of situation ethics is that the notion of love can be quite vague. Whilst we may all agree that we should love our neighbour, it may be unclear in terms of trying to decide exactly what are the most loving thing is in
any situation. For instance if someone is terminally ill then it may be a matter of opinion whether their life should be allowed to end or whether with pain relief
the opportunity of a few more weeks with the family may be a better option. In Fletcher’s book he gives the example of a patient who is offered expensive medical treatment to prolong his life for a few months but will cause his medical insurance to relapse. Fletcher seems to indicate that refusing the treatment may be the most loving option but the point is there is no clear way of deciding what really is the most loving thing. Someone else could equally justify the opposite decision
Following on from this criticism perhaps the point that Fletcher is trying to establish is that we are given more responsibility for the decisions that we make. We are asked to reason for ourselves about how love should be applied
whilst this might seem good in theory this relies on us having the relevant expertise to make a judgement about what is in the best interests of someone who is suffering from a severe condition and it also requires that we are able to make a judgement about the likely outcome
is natural law helpful to Euthanasia
The key precept of Natural Law argues for the preservation of life. Life is intrinsically valuable and should not be shortened. Natural Law is dependent on the Divine Law revealed by God. Key texts such as the Ten Commandments and Job 1:21 ‘God gives and God takes away’ seem to count against euthanasia. Following on from this, it would be difficult for someone to claim they were worshiping God, one of the five primary precepts, if they were shortening someone’s life. - goes against 3 primary precepts
It could also be argued that the practice of euthanasia would undermine the stability of society; a society where life was not valued could not be an ordered society. To end life by euthanasia instead of preserving life is an apparent good as opposed to a real good.
However, the principle of double effect may allow pain relief, such as morphine, even though administering such a drug may shorten life. This is acceptable provided the intention is to relieve pain and the shortening of life in an unintended secondary effect. Natural Law also draws a distinction between ordinary (natural) and extraordinary means. Thus, a sick person is obliged to take treatment by ordinary means, such as food and water, but an extraordinary treatment which is risky and may not work could be refused.
natural law is helpful bullet points
It upholds the intrinsic value of life
The principle of double effect gives a sensible flexibility to relieve pain when there is no prospect of saving life
It prevents humans from abusing power over others and putting themselves in the place of God
The focus on preserving life is a good thing and prevents us from assuming a casual view of euthanasia
Natural Law is linked to belief in God and is based on human reasoning. However, it is possible to debate the benefit of these links
Hugo Grotius said that NL would still apply even if there was no
God - doing what is ‘natural’ applies to all humans
natural law Is not helpful bullet points
Its religious foundations make it seem outdated
It is legalistic and shows no compassion to the pain and suffering experienced by many terminally ill people
The focus on sanctity of life means that the concepts of quality of life and individual autonomy are not seen as important
Natural Law makes an assumption about the purpose of humans. How capable is a persona able to fulfil their telos if they are in so much pain that they cannot live?
The idea of doing what is natural can be used to support euthanasia
- we put animals down as it is
‘natural’ to not want them to suffer.
Why is it so different for humans?
Natural Law is legalistic in its approach and has not kept pace with modern technological developments, for example, humane methods of euthanasia
John Finnis argues that life, knowledge, play, work, aesthetic experience, friendship,
reasonableness, etc, enable us to access the requirements that humans need. If a person is no longer able to access these things then it is cruel to insist they endure to protect a life that is no longer lived
With regards to the doctrine of double effect, can you really know what your intentions are?
Are ethical decision reached rationally? We often act spontaneously and out of a sense of duty or love and if you really loved someone you would help them die as if you didn’t you may feel guilty.
situation ethics is helpful to Euthanasia
It is flexible to individual situations, it recognises that no two situations regarding euthanasia are the same
Agape love, if correctly understood, is about ensuring the best possible outcome for the persons involved
Allows us to decide between two conflicting duties
Person-centred; giving humans the responsibility for the decisions they make, which fits with our legal system - we are convicted or liberated depending on the consequences of our actions
Agape love is a good principle - it is demanding and prevents us from personal bias; is it the most loving thing to allow euthanasia or is it the most loving thing to prevent it?
situation ethics isn’t helpful
Potentially ‘do the most loving thing is vague; what the most loving this is may be subjective - a matter of opinion or perspective
Situation ethics has a number of the weaknesses of utilitarianism in that it requires a prediction of the future: what the most loving outcome is may not be absolutely certain
Problem of experience/intention:
You cannot prove someone’s intention. E.g. if the patient wants euthanasia, you could say you were acting out of agape, however really you are acting out of greed because you want the inheritance money McQuarrie says that because SE is so personalised, it is difficult to see how it will be applied across all societies
case studies
Tony bland - PVS
Tracy latimer
