Euthanasia

Active vs. Passive

Voluntary, involuntary, non-voluntary

consequentialism

the law

case studies??

Wider reading

active : intentionally causing patient death eg. lethal injection

passive : death caused by an omission eg. withdrawing treatment - switching off machine, withholding treatment - not carrying out surgery that may extend life

voluntary - person asks someone to help them die, eg. write living will that explains wish to die if. they can no longer communicate

non-voluuntary : person no longer able to make decision eg. in coma - decision by relatives or medical experts

involuntary : person able to provide consent but does not (do not choose to, were not asked), usually described as murder

James Rachels - passive euthanasia prolongs pain experienced

BUT : passive means illness cause fo death not doctor, while active means doctor is cause

BUT : letting someone die is still an action, murder only sen as wrong because death is seen as an evil but if euthanasia desirable usual reason for not wanting to be cause does not apply

Peter Vardy

Natural Law

passive euthanasia aligns with DoDE

Right to life implies right to choose manner of death, personal autonomy BUT is this true if others are involved

Grisez and Boyles NL : basic human goods constitutive to human wellbeing (life) - never right to act against one of these basic goods - euthanasia not allowed as wrong to assume choice for death over life

Proportionalsim - Maquire - life basic good not absolute good - respected by not necessarily prolonged - against absolutism of "thou shalt not kill" have to weigh up proportional values to discover greater good

Charles Curran - dying process indicates life has reached its limit so euthanasia does not go against respect for life

rejects fatalistic theism (death part of God's plan) as this would mean all medicine is bad

Situation ethics - rationality key to human so can use free choice to die - most loving action must take into account affect on wider community

BUT : too vague, does not give any clear guidance, conflict of agape who do we priorities, relative so hard to make applicable law

Kant

emphasises intrinsic worth of every human being

can't use humans as means to end

universalisation of maxim is contradiction in law of nature - unless maxim more specific but this is not Kantian

Utilitarianism

alleviates suffering so greater happiness (but cancels out future happiness, physical pain does not equate suffering esp. with palliative care)

emphasises importance of liberty and autonomy

rule utilitarianism may be against legalisation - case that brings more happiness offset by negative effects

QALYS : qualitative measure for someones quality of life p measure psychological state, level of pain and mobility - what drugs could help and are good value for money

BUT : removes emotion, undermines human life, life should be more important than monetary threshold

killing a person undermines this personhood

but if someone is unconsihod does not have personhood (passive is okay)

CRITCISMS : no emotion, undermines reason of individual as reducing free will, confusion over who has personhood, situations too relative for universal rule

against precept of preserving life

using morphnine attention is to relieve pain (adverse effect is death being sped up, whereas active has bad effect as main intention

personalism : reduce pian, respect wishes

STRENGTHS : emphasis on dignity of person, love is intuitive response, appreciates emotions, relative so can be adapted

Mill : paient may be unable to partake in higher pleasures

illegal in UK

Popper - negative utilitarianism - alleviates pain

Singer - preference utilitarianism - in persons interest

On Liberty - does not harm others so gov. should not be able to intervene

BUT : family - does affect others

limited medical resources, hospice care is expensive so this would be reduced

elderly/disabled may feel pressure - slippery slope

aligns with Christian view - should respect SoL, only God can judge and control human lives "the lord gave and the lord has taken away"

should rejoice in suffering as Christ suffered

Hume :Is-ought gap (just because it is derived from natural law does not make it moral)

love for individual : reduce pain, dignity in. dying

click to edit