LOA’s Flashcards
(6 cards)
How can one apply natural law to euthanasia?
Natural Law’s fundamental opposition to euthanasia remains ethically significant but must be balanced with considerations of quality of life and autonomy in practice; its application requires thoughtful interpretation rather than strict absolutism in today’s complex moral landscape.
How can one apply situation ethics to euthanasia?
Situation ethics is the most morally robust and context-sensitive framework for addressing euthanasia.
Its ability to integrate compassion, autonomy, and rationality enables it to respond justly to individual suffering in ways that rigid rules (such as those in sanctity of life or natural law) cannot.
However, this flexibility must be paired with safeguards and societal maturity to avoid abuse. Ultimately, it provides a nuanced, ethically compelling way of applying Christian principles in a modern world.
Does the religious concept of sanctity of life have any meaning in twenty-first century medical ethics?
The religious concept of sanctity of life retains symbolic and moral weight, but only has real meaning in modern medical ethics when reinterpreted through flexible, human-centred ethical theories such as autonomy and quality of life.
To remain ethically relevant, the sanctity of life must no longer operate as an inflexible rule but be integrated into a broader framework that reflects the complexity of contemporary medical practice.
Can a person have complete autonomy over their own life and decisions made about it?
A person cannot have complete autonomy over their life and death decisions, as this ignores the role of reason, societal context, and moral responsibility.
But they should have qualified autonomy, where rational self-determination is respected alongside compassionate ethical safeguards. This ensures human dignity without descending into moral chaos.
Should a person have complete autonomy over their own life and decisions made about it?
Ultimately, full or absolute autonomy is ethically problematic, as it may enable irrational or coercive decisions.
However, a rational, consequentialist understanding of autonomy, combined with attention to quality of life and robust societal safeguards, provides a morally justifiable and practically sound model.
This view allows individuals to retain dignity and agency in their most vulnerable moments, without opening the door to exploitation or ethical decay.
In conclusion, a person should not have complete autonomy, but they should have rational, conditional autonomy that is informed, safeguarded, and compassionately applied.
Is there a moral difference between medical intervention to end a patient’s life and medical non-intervention to end a patient’s life
While traditional religious theories such as sanctity of life and natural law argue for a moral difference between active and passive euthanasia by appealing to intention, divine authority, and natural order, these views appear increasingly ill-suited to modern clinical and ethical realities.
Their reliance on rigid categories like “intending” vs “foreseeing” death creates moral inconsistencies, especially when the end result is the same.
By contrast, theories based on quality of life, rational autonomy, and agapeic love highlight that what truly matters is the context, consequences, and rational will of the patient—not the method used.
Ultimately, if all appropriate safeguards are in place, there is no compelling moral difference between actively ending life and allowing it to end. What matters is that the decision reflects informed compassion, rational autonomy, and respect for human dignity.
