Euthanasia / Ethics ~ Philosophy of Religion ~ Continuation (VOLUNTARY…
Euthanasia / Ethics ~ Philosophy of Religion ~ Continuation
This is when a person's life is ended painlessly by a third party at their own request. However, killing a patient seems opposed to what a doctor should do.
suggests several factors to be considered before deciding to follow through with voluntary euthanasia:
The helper should be convinced that the decision is serious and that the decision is not temporary
The helper should think that is is reasonable - to discuss the quality of life
The circumstance - are they liable to change?
There are three common reasons given for not permitting voluntary euthanasia, which
calls side effects:
Allowing voluntary euthanasia could lead to involuntary euthanasia as in the situation in Nazi Germany when people were 'euthanised' (murdered) if they had serious illnesses or disabilities.
Could lead to people being discouraged from going to a hospital for treatment.
Would detrimentally affect
as the focus would be altered to decisions about ending life, not comforting the patient.
This is euthanasia without request. A person is unable to request their wish to die so another person ends their life on their behalf. Non-voluntary euthanasia should be in the interest of the person who dies, and not anyone else.
A critical issue to non-voluntary euthanasia is who will carry out the act - family members, doctors or courts? Another issue is whether the state reaches is definitely irreversible or whether there may have been an unexpected or miraculous change in the condition of the patient where death should no longer be an option.
argues that the desire for control over how we die marks a turn away from the sanctity of life ethic. Increasingly, doctors are willing to break the commandment not to kill, the strongest moral rule.
argument comes into discussion about euthanasia. This is the unintended consequences that might happen is a course of action is followed. It weighs up the fear of future circumstances against the immediate questions of the present. Therefore, it requires future judgement about the consequences.
' NATURAL LAW APPRAOCH:
Natural Law thinking is concerned not simply with the physical body but the whole person and their ultimate end which AQUINAS understood to be linked to God's ultimate plan for that person; heaven.
Catholic moral thought adopts the ethics of natural law where key primary precepts draw on the preservation of life, which upholds the notion of the sanctity of life. The purpose of human beings is to live a loving life. The Catholic Church's teachings on euthanasia concludes, therefore, that euthanasia is wrong as life is sacred and a gift from God.
Taking a life subverts
and ends the possibility of the person bringing love into the world. To take a life, according to the Catholic Church, opposes God's love for that person and rejects the duty of a person to live according to God's plan,
'a rejection of God's sovereignty and loving plan.'
Euthanasia is an
as it fails to recognise a greater good related to the intrinsic nature of life.
doctrine of double effect
as the most important purpose. The intention is not to kill or to give a person power to end their life, but rather to reduce pain through reasonable means. This possibility is explicitly recognised in Catholic teaching and is classified as the
in the UK medical practice, not euthanasia.
SITUATION ETHICS APPROACH:
FLETCHER'S ethics reject
. His ethics see euthanasia as whether it is the right or wrong thing to do, but rather making a moral decision being made with the situation at hand, along with the guiding principle of unconditional love.
FLETCHER described euthanasia as death control. His approach to euthanasia was based on the notion of patient autonomy. He emphasises the personal dimensions of morality in medical care and rejected naturalism (natural law) as an approach.
For FLETCHER, the question of the quality of life was more important than the sanctity of life.
[-] DISCUSSING EUTHANASIA:
[-] The sanctity of life is an idea influenced by religious views regarding the meaning of life - that there is some divine being and purpose to their experience. Arguably, the sanctity of life is based on outdated knowledge and practices when applied to the contemporary world. Perhaps the religious concept of sanctity fails to accommodate the new medical technologies that enable life to be prolonged.
[-] Euthanasia would weaken society's respect for the value and importance of human life.
[-] It would put too much power in the hands of doctors, and damage the trust between patient and doctor as well as undermining the commitment of doctors and nurses to save lives.
[+] DISCUSSING EUTHANASIA:
[+] Sanctity of life as a concept may have religious origins but the basic urge to protect life is an idea shared and common worldwide; religious and non-religious.
[+] It is argued that humans are self-determining and so the patient should determine their wish to die and the manner of it. It is a private matter that should not require others from interfering.