Euthenasia Flashcards
(16 cards)
Euthenasia
Active + passive euthanasia
Assisted suicide
the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma.
Active euthanasia is a deliberate action performed by a third-party to kill a person for example through lethal injection
Passive euthenasia is the act of intentionally letting a person die by withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment, rather than actively causing their death
Assisted suicide is helping someone with the tools or methods of killing themselves but where they do the action themselves for example giving them a pill which they themselves take
Voluntary
non- voluntary
And involuntary euthanasia
Voluntary euthanasia is where a person‘s life is ended painlessly by a third-party at their own request
non-voluntary euthanasia is where a person is unable to express their wish to die but there are responsible grounds for ending their life painfully.
Involuntary euthanasia is where a person wants to live, but it is decided by a doctor or family member that it is in their best interest that their life ends
Sanctity of life origins
+ 2 bible quotes
‘‘Image dei’- stems from the idea that we share something of the characteristics of God and that we are made in his image and likeness
Similar to this, God gave us divine purpose of destiny as seen in the creation story and Jesus dying on the cross. He sent his own son/him in human form to us so humans could achieve salvation through the sacrifice of his death, demonstrating our own important to God and his divine plan.
“Your body is a temple. You do not belong to yourself.”
“Whoever ever sheds human blood by humans shall their blood be shed but in the image of God has God made mankind “
Sanctity of life when applied to euthenasia
There is a difference between strong and weak sanctity of life principles
A “strong sanctity of life” position degrees that love is so precious that it falls outside of what humans have control over, instead it is a matter of obedience to religious authority.
In taking one life, the status of life is undermine and humans are endangered- once the ending of lies is justifiable life is justified is undermine the society sense in setting a potentially destructive precedent that gives individuals authority to end another life.
A “weak sanctity of life” position acknowledges the inherent value of all human life, but also considers other factors like quality of life and compassion when making ethical decisions about life-ending matters. Unlike a strong view, a weak position acknowledges that the quality of a life can be a factor in ethical considerations. This means that a life with a low quality of life, perhaps due to severe suffering or disability, may be considered differently from a life with a high quality of life. It also emphasizes the importance of compassion and the well-being of individuals. This means that considerations of compassion and the alleviation of suffering may be weighed against the sanctity of life principle.
May be more open to considering euthanasia or assisted dying in cases of severe, incurable suffering, or abortion in cases where the quality of life for the unborn child is severely compromised. It might also allow for the termination of life-support in situations where the patient’s wishes or medical conditions are such that prolonging life would be deemed inhumane.
Quality of life
+ QALYs
is a broad concept that encompasses an individual’s overall well-being, encompassing physical, mental, and social aspects. It’s a subjective experience influenced by personal values, relationships, health, and circumstances. The World Health Organization defines it as an individual’s perception of their position in life, considering their culture, values, goals, and expectations
Had Multidimensionality, encompassing various aspects like social, emotional, and mental well-being, health status, relationships, work environment, and personal circumstances.
While standard of living focuses on economic factors like income and possessions, QoL is broader and encompasses subjective experiences and personal well-being.
Example: A person with a chronic illness might have a good QoL despite facing health challenges, if they have strong social support, a fulfilling work life, and maintain a positive outlook
QALYs or quality adjusted life years are a measurement in health economics used to evaluate medical interventions by combining quality and quantity of life. This also helps compare the effectiveness of treatments and allocate resources to maximise health benefits.
Personhood
+ secondary sholar
CARCAS
Defined as the quality or condition of being a person and is often linked to capacities and seeks to distinguish between human bodies that have lost key defining features of humanity and those who retain them
In her work, Warren distinguishes between being human in the genetic sense (a member of the species Homo sapiens) and being a person in the moral sense (a being with moral rights). She argues that not all human beings are persons.
Mary anne Warren defined being a person as possessing a combination of consciousness, reasoning, self motivated activity, capacity to communicate, and an awareness of self
According to Warren, a being that possesses some or all of these traits to a significant degree is a person and thus has full moral rights, including the right to life.
In cases such as Severe brain-damage, permanent comas, advanced stages of dementia or vegetative states
If such individuals no longer meet the criteria for personhood, Warren argues that they do not have a moral right to life, even though they may still be biologically alive. In such cases, euthanasia could be morally permissible, or even ethically preferable, particularly when continuing life would entail suffering or would impose significant burdens on others.
However, Warren does not advocate euthanasia broadly or without caution. She supports it primarily in contexts where- The individual has explicitly consented (voluntary euthanasia), The individual is no longer a person in the moral sense, and continuing life serves no rational purpose, There is compelling ethical justification, such as preventing prolonged suffering
Applying natural law to euthanasia
(Forbidding it)
Sanctity of life is believed by both Catholics and Protestants to be effectively justified in the Bible. Catholics would also argue that natural law ethics provides justification for a conservative sanctity of life principal- as God created life only he has the right to end it.
In the most basic interpretation, euthanasia disrupt any possibility of you eudiamonia, as it ends a life making it incapable of ‘flourishing. Furthermore, it directly distrusts on of the key precepts to preserve life and goes against divine law- the law revealed to us in the Bible.
“Your body is a temple. You do not belong to yourself.”
“Whoever ever sheds human blood by humans shall their blood be shed but in the image of God has God made mankind “
Applying natural law to euthanasia
(Allowing it)
However Dr Shaw the author of the journal of medical ethics, reevaluate euthanasia from perspective view ammonia or flourishing and concluded that euthanasia may be necessary in some cases to achieve used due to the inability to live a truly happy life if it is one of unbearable suffering and pain.
Furthermore, fundamental liberties were given to us by God and he himself has similar values of compassion as well as an understanding nature that we have the we should be able to dictate the way that we die.
Arguably, the doctrine of double effect against the key precept to preserve life but an understanding of importance of protecting and helping people allows an action to be permissible when it has both good and bad side effects as long as the bad side effects were not intended therefore it may allow passive euthanasia to a certain extent but would not allow assisted suicide or active euthanasia
Applying situation ethics to euthanasia
(In favour)
Rules are dispensable because the most loving thing to do may well be to give someone a peaceful death
The four working principles including personalism and pragmatism may argue that we should put the people first and make sure that they are at the centre of all moral considerations rather than strict rules and may understand the use of QALYs to be realistic and practical especially in terms of medical ethics surrounding euthanasia
The six propositions particularly “love decides on each situation as it arises” only the end justifies the mean may decree that we are considerate and do what’s the most loving and that the end being ending suffering could justify the means that which is his achieved
Places as Jesus is a principle of agape love above all other principles so strict rules in the Bible as would be used in natural law maybe disregarded in comparison in favour of personal relations
6 propositions- “love is the ruling norm.. and replaces all laws”
a
Applying situation ethics to euthanasia
(opposing it)
However, the radicalism of acting out of love in each situation may be unhelpful in terms of legislation as they may deem it right to break laws if the situation demands it
Utilising the four working principles again, personalism and relativism (ensure it is people centred and relative to each situation) may directly contradict the principle of pragmatism as it is questionable whether or not we can effectively determine someone’s quality of life
Ron Houben was determined as being in a permanent vegetative state after a car crash for 23 years and was then reassessed and found to be conscious, using similar logic we also cannot predict whether or not the quality of someone’s life will improve in terms of their mental and emotional state, including their adjustment to the situation that they are in
Autonomy
+ case study
The belief that we are free and able to make our own decisions
Daniel James broke his spine after a training session at his rugby club in March 2007 and became paralysed from the waist down. He died in Dinita in 2008 despite psychologists findings that it often takes two years to adjust to a serious trauma or bereavement .
Contrasting secondary scholars on autonomy
J.Glover argue that there should be several checks on whether or not someone should be assisted in their desire to die “ it must be properly thought out, not merely the result of a temporary emotional state”
- Implies external judgement on a patient’s quality of life and mental state arguably removing the factor of autonomy in making decisions regarding euthanasia and creates further complications with previous and slippery slope arguments
Ronald Dwarkin argued the voluntary euthanasia was similar to withdrawing treatment because in both cases the patient is making a conscious decision with the intention of allowing death to occur. He emphasises the importance of patient autonomy as well as the moral distinction not lying in the act itself but the intention (which in many cases is to protect the patient’s wishes and alleviate suffering)
Other arguments against voluntary euthanasia
- Allowing voluntary euthanasia encourages unscrupulous relatives to encourage sick relatives to end their lives
- it could potentially send the message that it is better to be dead and sick or disabled
- puts doctors and healthcare professionals in an impossible position as they have taken a hypocrite oath not to take or and a life right to die doesn’t necessarily Trump their rights, enforcing them to kill
- If better palliative care was offered, it could be an alternative to euthanasia and greatly reduce the number of assisted deaths
Non- voluntary euthanasia
(Arguments against)
- not for us to decide what the acceptable standard of brain function is
- never a point of complete medical certainty of no recovery
- slippery slope argument
- Boyle rejected the view that one can cease to be a person while still being alive and instead argue with something maintains to be distinctly human
Slippery slope argument
+2 secondary scholars
Alfred Sidgwick argued society legalised voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill individuals. It will inevitably lead to a situation where nonvoluntary or even involuntary euthanasia becomes acceptable. This puts potentially vulnerable individuals are greater risk of being killed and leads to a slippery slope of increasingly morally questionable practices until the concept of borderline murder becomes acceptable
Eugene volokh argued that there is insufficient evidence supporting the chain of events leading to the undesirable outcome
Instead this argument relies on suspicion and fear mongering to over exaggerate
the likelihood of the events depends on specific context and sociable norms- places that have legalised voluntary euthanasia has not seen such as unravelling and if sufficient safeguards were put in place that would be a distinct reduction including places such as Switzerland, Belgium, Norway, Canada, and some states of the US.
This argument has become fallacious in its reliance on exaggerated or insubstantial links between additional action and feared outcome.
The doctrine of acts and omissions
(Active vs passive euthanasia)
act-omission doctrine, posits a moral distinction between actively causing harm and passively allowing harm to occur, even if the consequences are the same.
it makes an ethical difference whether or an agent actively intervenes or omits to act
Those who are who kill a different morally than those who do not intervene to save a life the
Smith and Jones example is where Smith Jones his nephew to inherit his fortune however Jones does not save the drowning nephew that slipped and fell into the bath
