Euthanasia Flashcards
(28 cards)
The conservative view
The conservative, sometimes also called the ‘strong’ sanctity of life view, claims that because God created human life, only God has the right to end it. Humans were created in God’s image, further suggesting that human life is especially valuable
3 Biblical quote against Euthanasia
1) “Your body is a temple of the holy spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God. You do not belong to yourself” (1 Corinthians 6:19).
2) “You shall not murder” Exodus 20:13 (Ten commandments)
3) “a time to be born and a time to die” (Ecclesiastes 3)
What is the opposing argument to sanctity of life?
quality of life
What are two types of Euthanasia?
1) Voluntary
2) Non-voluntary
NL approach to euthanasia
- Natural law ethics claims that we should follow the Bible teachings, which Aquinas calls the ‘divine law’. It claims there is also another law, the ‘natural law’ which also comes from God. God has given reason to human nature and designed it to be able to intuitively know the primary precepts of natural law.
- Application to Euthanasia. Euthanasia violates the primary precept to protect and preserve human life.
NL approach to euthanasia
Violating the sanctity of life, such as by allowing euthanasia, also violates….
Violating the sanctity of life, such as by allowing euthanasia, also violates the primary precept of maintaining an orderly society. Natural law is the idea that God designed all things, including humans, with the potential to be in harmony if they follow God’s natural law, such as the preservation of human life. Failure to follow this will therefore cause disharmony. Our society will break down because living contrary to God’s design is unnatural and thus leads to immorality and social disorder.
NL: The catholic church approach to Euthanasia
The Catholic Church uses the double effect to claim that sometimes doctors can stop or withdraw treatment (passive euthanasia) or even administer pain medication which could speed up death. So long as the intention is not to kill, the double effect would suggest such actions can be morally acceptable.
NL: The catechism of the catholic church
QUOTE
- “Intentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator”
- “Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment.”
Strength of NL in relation to euthanasia
(weakness then counter)
- Applied to euthanasia, we can argue it was useful to simply ban all killing in medieval times, because violence and killing was much more common and therefore needed to be strongly restricted. People were less self-controlling and less educated, so they needed clear simple rules to follow.
- However, there is nothing to say that society couldn’t easily revert back to such things with the relaxation of such rules
What is the definition of Euthanasia?
Literally meaning a goood death, it refers to the practice of hastening someones death perhaps in order to spare them further suffering.
What is the quality of life argument?
Quality of life refers to how happy or unhappy a life is. Proponents of the quality of life in relation to euthanasia regard it as a valid ethical consideration because they think that life has to be of a certain quality in order for it to count as worth living.
What is Singers stance on Euthanasia?
Peter Singer believes the quality of life to be an important factor in euthanasia. He goes as far as recommending non-voluntary euthanasia for babies whose potential quality of life is low, such as due to being born with an incurable condition like spine abifida.
Counter to Singers stance on QL
Whilst his views may be rooted in the concern of the quality of life for others, his stance is devaluing the life of many people, who may be more than capable of living a fulfilled life. This may be a slippery slope that could lead to the re-introduction of Eugenic policies. for example, In the early 20th century, the American eugenics movement led to compulsory sterilisation laws targeting those deemed “unfit” to reproduce — including people labeled as “feeble-minded,” mentally ill, disabled, or poor.
Quote from Peter Singer
“Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.”
Implications of singers views
Singer’s support for non-voluntary euthanasia appears to contradict his own preference utilitarianism. If moral rightness depends on satisfying individual preferences, then killing infants — who cannot express preferences — seems unjustifiable. This suggests a weakness in his theory: it cannot adequately protect those who are vulnerable precisely because they cannot articulate their wishes. Some might argue that this leads to dangerous moral ground where life is valued only when a person can express preferences — undermining both dignity and moral equality.
Fletchers view on Euthanasia
- SE would value QL and autonomy over sanctity of life. Autonomy is especially significant as ‘personalism’ is one of Fletchers four principles; it is people and their welfare rtaher than the keeping of laws that is at the heart of ethics.
- The theory is relativist in its approach - Fletcher states that ‘loves decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively’.
SE and Euthanasia
link to Fletchers book
In his 1954 book Morals and Medicine, he argues that the patients’s medical condition has to be the starting point for any decisions in medical ethics. This is not a total endorsement of euthanasia, but a recognition that there are cases where this is the right option.
SE and euthanasia
What does Fletcher value?
Fletcher values pragmatism - we should do whatever is likel to work. In the topic of euthanasia there may ot be ideal and perfect solutions, but what can be done is to ensure the decisions that are taken are likely to lead to the lesser of the possible evils.
Problems with SE approach to euthanasia
- vague. While respecting ones autonomy and doing the most loving thing may be a good and idealistic aim, there is little guidance on what this might look like in practice. This leas to a variation of subjective interpretations of what the most loving thing to do is.
- Like other teleological theoris, it requires a prediciton of future consequences. This is not always possible in complex medical cases.
- Lacks absolutist boundaries and citics of euthanasia express concern about a slippery slope that may lead to an increase in euthanasia cases, particularly for vulnerable people.
Mills non-harm and autonomy principle + one limitation
The principle of autonomy states that humans should be free to make decisions about their own future. It can be traced back to Mills NHP: while the governmen or other authorities may restrict our freedom if we are about to harm someone else, they have no right to restrict our freedon with regard to ourselves. If we wish to harm ourselves, we should be permitted to do so.
(-)Fails to recognise that euthanasia does harm others e.g. families and people with similar conditions
What was found in 2011
That some hospitals had ben putting ‘DNR’ (do not resuscitate) on the notes of frail elderly patients without proper discussion with the patient or their family.
Implication of what was found in 2011
This raises serious ethical concerns about consent and autonomy. If such decisions are already being made without full discussion, then legalising euthanasia could risk even more serious consequences. Vulnerable people — such as the elderly, disabled, or terminally ill — may feel pressured to choose death, not because they freely want it, but because they see themselves as a burden. This could lead to a culture where euthanasia is expected or encouraged, rather than a truly free choice. It suggests that relaxing the laws around assisted dying may not always lead to greater autonomy, but to subtle forms of coercion and discrimination — especially against those who are already marginalised in society.
What is the difference between acts and omissions?
- Act: Doing something that causes an outcome. For example, a doctor gives a patient a lethal injection to end their life (active euthanasia)
- Omission: Failing to do something, which allows an outcome to occur. For example, a doctor withholds life-saving treatment, allowing the patient to die (passive euthanasia)
Who argues that the distinction between actively killing and passively letting someone die may not be helpful and how?
Acts vs omissions
- American philosopher James Racchels.
- Rachels uses two examples distinguishing between the two:
- Act: Smith is a legal gaurdian for his nephew and will inherit a fortune if his young nephew dies before his 18th birthday. Smith makes plans to kill his nephew. One evening he drowns the boy in the bath and arranges the scene to look like an accident. The nephews death is an ‘act’ of Smith
- Omission: Jones is also legal gaurdian for his nephew and will inherit a fortune if his young nephew dies before his 18th bday. Jones resents his nephew but would never intentionally harm him. As he enters the bathroom, he seens his nephew slip and hit his head on the bath and slowly drown. He watched and does nothing to save him. The nephews death is an ‘omission’; Jones could have saved him
argues that there is no moral difference between killing and letting die. He illustrates this using two cases: Smith actively kills his nephew by drowning him, while Jones allows his nephew to drown by doing nothing.
