Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Euthanasia - Coggle Diagram
Euthanasia
-
Sanctity of Life
SofL = life is intrinsically sacred/valuable
Religious: life is god given gift / imago dei
Secular: life is valuable as we have reason & free will (Kant & human value) | embedded evolutionary mandate to value life.
This argues against EU. it says that QofL doesn't matter and that taking away life undermines SofL & slippery slope. However, there are exceptions to SofL and sometimes taking a life ca be permitted.
Quotes:
‘So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them’ - Genesis 1:27
‘You shall not murder / thou shallt not kill’ - Exodus 20:13
‘The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord’ - Job 1:21
Strengths:
- values life
- similar to idea of rights
- supported by NL
-supported by Bible
- avoids slippery slope (example of abortions now over 180,000 yearly)
Against:
- outdated religious worldview
- scientific advances means no need to value all life at all costs, we know whether an individual life can be saved or not.
- SE condemns SofL legalistic interpretation
- Suffering is increased
- Singer: it frustrates individual autonomy
- Speciesist - why aren't animals considered?
- Contradictory - denying autonomy because we have autonomy
- faulty idea of 'gift' - we can refuse it
- We should refrain from preventing the end of life (all medical treatment), if we argue that we can't interfere w/ God
- Evolutionary biology: imago dei < evolution
- Bible hypocritical: contradictory, God commands death but promotes SofL?
Voluntary - terminally ill patient requests life to be ended
Non-voluntary - decision to end life taken by another, but in patient's best interests
Glover: have to make sure decision is serious w/ cases of voluntary. There are 3 main criticisms of voluntary, which Glover responds to:1) could lead to involuntary (slippery slope / Nazi Germnay)
- but Nazi policy came from evil ideology, not VE itself
2) could scare people from going to hopsital
- we don't know how they'd behave / whether this would be the case
3) could affect end-of-life palliative care (less comfort)
- unlikely that the idea of ending a life would detract from the comfort one recieves.
CASE STUDIES
VE: Simon's Choice / Simon Binner - MND died of lethal injection 2015 BBC doc
IE: Tony Bland 1993 death after Hillsborough,landmark ruling
IE: Robert & Tracy Latimer 1993, tried for murder.
Acts & Omissions: Acts: Lillian Boyes & Nigel Cox
Acts & Omissions: Omissions: Tony Bland
Acts & Omissions
The acts and omissions doctrine maintains that there is an ethical difference between a doctor actively intervening to bring about the death of their patient and omitting to act when they know that as a result of their failure to act the patient will die. Hippocrates suggests this can be observed in medical practice.
James Rachels: Killings in the Bath (wicked uncle). act = drowning cousin, omission = watching him drown. The act is guiltier than the omission, but in truth they are both equally bad. [also consider moral distance and causal connections - Singer and Glover also both question the A/O distinction]
Natural Law
- generally opposes Euhanasia
- against divine law
- against basic good: preservation of life
- against basic good: worship God
- against BG: order in society
- real/apparent goods - euthanasia = apparent
However:
- Doc. of double effect - could allow analgesics e.g. morphine which may shorten life if intention is pure.
- Extra/ordinary means: NL makes distinction; extra could be withdrawn or refused.
- Personhood: if individual lacks higher functions given by god then rules might not apply
Eval: Strengths:
- upholds SofL
- Doc of 2effect gives flexibility
- prevents abuse of power
- clear guidance: absolutist
- avoids slippery slope
Weaknesses:
- religious foundations mean it's outdated
- too legalistic, no compassion
- focus on SofL means QofL and autonomy disregarded
- medical advances mean extra/ordinary distinction is too hard to make
Situation ethics
- generally supports Euthanasia
- rejects absolutism and legalism
- ethical = to look at each situation
- Fletcher was president of Euth. Soc of America
- example of man wanting to claim his life insurance
- personalism: prioritises individual
- QofL - emphasises the value and worth of life
- rejects legalism: middle way, allowing flexibility
- relativist and situational
Eval:Strengths:
- more flexible, more compassionate, suits complexity of life
- agape love should always ensure best outcome
- less discriminatory towards disabled
- greater emphasis on human autonomy
Weaknesses:
- agape is subjective and vague
- SE requires crystal ball gazing, totally uncertain
- no recognition of SofL
- legalisation process difficult as it is case by case, not legalistic
- might create slippery slope
- impossible to define a situation
Quality of Life
QofL= life's value depends on certain goods e.g. happiness/autonomy
- supported by Singer
- contradicts SofL
- supports Eu: i.e. can bring about death if it is preferable to life
- often considered in cases of animal welfare (putting pets down etc.)
Autonomy
= 'self-ruling' / the belief that we are free and able to make our own decisions. This principles supports QofL and opposes SofL. We should be able to determine the time and manner of our own deaths.
Personhood
the quality of being a person, asking the Q: "What makes someone a person?". If a living thing isn't a person, then perhaps it doesn't have the same rights to life. - linked to capacities and functions (e.g. autonomy, awareness, creativity etc.) Singer says killing a 'non-person' doesn't carry the same moral weight
The acts/omissions distinction: an act which causes death is morally and legally wrong vs. an omission (stopping a treatment which prolongs inevitable death and increases suffering) may not be morally wrong
Active - same as direct, intentional mercy-killing
Passive - allowing death e.g. by withholding treatment
Law: illegal in UK | legal in countries such as Holland/Switzerland | in UK suicide has been decriminalised but assisting suicide is still illegal | Passive non-voluntary permitted in some cases e.g. Tony Bland
Why is killing wrong?
Glover - killing only happens when someone is conscious. We see it as wrong because of its side-effects (his prison example, killing inmate)
Singer: a life is valuable if it invokes effects, frustration of victim's desires, capacity to see life over time and is autonomous.
Sanctity of Life (Genesis 1:27 in God's image)
Armstrong and Miller - what makes killing wrong is the loss of all remaining abilities. i.e.the totally disabled can be killed morally, as there is nothing lost.
Extraordinary means: artificial interference, withdrawal of which results in death from natural causes. However, this withdrawal could be seen as an action: it's a change in the environment and it has a cause.