Euthinasia Flashcards
(16 cards)
Sanctity of life
-natural law
-how man is made imago dei , God said: “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness”. thus we have a innate moral repsinsiblity to protect life
-suffering has value
Ccc - ; it is in fact a sharing in Christ’s passion and a union with the redeeming sacrifice
Risk of slippery slope
John Paull 11
See how it is logically neccesary to protect life
Life is the foundation of human experience
Upholds ‘ordered society’
Vardy - ‘danger of selifshness’ with consuqentlaism eg) coudl euthanise parent for inheretance
Barlcay – autonomy works only if ‘all mens are angels’ - too much freedoom to allow siutational approach.
Sanctity of life prevents issues that arise form autonomy
Eg) voultanry euthianiasia exitsing may lead the vulrneable to feel like a burden.
-if uncosnocus/in coma, it overcomes personal guil of who makes desicsion/peforms act. Leaves it to gods will
Eg)Tony Bland case where family argued
– worth of life cannot be judged by a certian cirtieria eg) consousness/personhood, this is reductionist.
See how sacnity oflife can have some felxibiltiy
-basis in the double of doctrine effect
Kelly ‘functions in any rational sytem of moraltiy’
Catehcism ‘inabitlity to impede can be accpeted’
Slippery slope fails
-singer;out of 48000 end of life desiciosn in netehrladns, only 2 wihtout consent
-glover: nazi control not a product of legal euathinaisa, but evil ideology
-kusche- slippery slope is a scareonger tactic
Commits straw man fallacy though employing extreme examples eg) nazi germany
Incotherent in modern soicety
See how we are now in an over 50% secular society
Incoherent to be led by a chritsian thoery
-is damaging as means law is baised. From secularist view this is inequality as provides a greater privlidge to a faith
Racheals – modern technology eg) life suppoert machines non eixtent when sacnoty of life thoery written
-inventions have allowed us to distinguish betwen bioloigcal (heart beat) and biogrpahical life (actual consousness )
Argument for autonomy
Glover – sees how autnomoy is a unquestonable human right. Refusing to help is a denial of human dignity
Kervorkian – doctor who helped authanise, ‘highest principle of medical ethcis is personal autonomy’
Chung – looks to the christain doctrine of free will. God created us, but we are not his puppets. We have a ‘consoentous descisison’
Racheals
Biological and biographical
Believes that the sanctity of life principle puts too much value on human life and this can be unhelpful. He makes a distinction between biological life (being alive = functioning biological organism) and biographical life (having a life = everything that makes us who we are). He argues that taking away biological life is acceptable.
Maguire
Rejects the idea that God alone has the power over life and death; this seems to imply that we belong to God and are his property.
He recognises that this is a departure from the traditional Christian ethic of ‘not destroying innocent life’, and that making judgments between conflicting values is difficult but ethical reflection can lead to euthanasia being, on some occasions. a legitimate moral choice.
-He argues that euthanasia may be seen as legitimate once the dying process has begun
- still maintains the sanctity of life and respects life, but the dying process shows that life has reached its limit.
- The use of euthanasia to shorten the time taken to die by not prolonging life is considered legitimate, as humans can still have power over this without denying the sanctity of life.
Singer
Rejects the traditional sanctity of life principle and believed a person’s ability to have desires and preferences gives priority to humans, not a soul.
He argues that people with a low quality of life (as judged by the person) should be justified in ending their life or justifies someone else doing it for them.
He also believes the non-voluntary euthanising of a severely disabled and suffering young infant child (who cannot express any wishes regarding their future) may be justifiable on the following grounds: “When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.”
JS mill
Developed the liberty principle which is the idea that humans are the best judge of their own happiness and so should be given maximum freedom or liberty to live their lives as they consider appropriate. He argued that individuals should have full autonomy, as long as by exercising that autonomy they do not harm anyone else, known as the ‘harm principle’. He suggested that the only legitimate government interference in a person’s life is to stop that person from harming others; all other interference is not to be justified. Therefore, voluntary euthanasia should be permitted as an individual’s freedom cannot be restricted and if a person wishes to harm themselves or end their own life, they should be able to.
Glover
1)consciousness
Argues that being alive is not enough for life to be valuable. Killing is not wrong if a person is not conscious. He believes that the body is an instrument to enable a conscious experience. He therefore supports non-voluntary euthanasia for PVS patients.
2)autonomy
He believes that refusing to help someone when they are suffering or dying is nomy. a serious denial of a person’s autonomy.
3)Slippery slope fails
He also rejects the slippery slope argument as he suggests that the Nazi policy did not result from the legalisation voluntary euthanasia but from an evil ideology that devalued people’s lives.
He acknowledges that ‘there is no adequate test for deciding the point at which someone’s life is not worth living’ and suggests that the least unsatisfactory test is to ask what one would choose for oneself: ‘would I choose death rather than have that sort of life?’
Dworkin
Pro sanctity of life
Believed life should not be protected at all costs. He argued that sanctity of life means two distinct things:
1)life should be preserved, but that life should also be of a high quality.
2) human life is precious, but it should be of a good quality.
He goes on to assert that although human beings have a natural inclination to believe that their neighbours’ lives should not be taken, they also do not want their lives to be a living hell.
Pope Paul
Argues that euthanasia leads to a culture of death, where “a person who compromises the life-style of those more favoured tends to be look upon as an enemy”.
Logical validation of sanctity of life
Life is foundation of human experience
Thus it necessarily must be protected
-cannot have life without protection
If life can become devalued based on its quality, taking the life of others based on their quality of life may become acceptable (Nazi Eugenics programme) – slippery slope, society becomes disordered.
Active and Passive - Hopkins
Believes that in the case of euthanasia, removing a machine is no different (functionally, morally metaphysically) from removing a biological bodily organ if both systems are performing the same role as both are cases of disrupting some bodily process. If this disruption leads to death, then both are cases of killing. He argues that if we are cruel in refusing to let nature free patients from the trap of technology, we are both cruel and conceptually blind when we refuse to let technology free patients from the trap of nature.
A/P - Callahan
Looks to intention – interior act in passive is not to kill, but allows natures decision
Believes that the distinction between killing (active euthanasia) and allowing a person to die (passive euthanasia) is still perfectly valid because to bring the life of another to an end by an injection is to directly kill the person whereas to allow someone to die from a disease we cannot cure (and that we did not cause) is to permit the disease to act as the cause of death.
A/P - Fuchs
Believes there is a relevant difference between killing and letting die on the level of causality.
On a biological level we are able to obtain the proper notion of killing. ‘
-Letting die’ means to give way to an ongoing inner-organismic process of disintegration,
-vs active the doctor has intentionally ended this process
A/P - Rahceals
Active and Passive
Argues there is no moral distinction between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. The result is the same – the patient is dead.
Hypothesises that passive euthanasia may actually be worse as it is cruel and inconsistent because the process of dying may be long and drawn out, bringing about more suffering than is necessary
