Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

euthanasia - Coggle Diagram

- - - - upholds the intrinsic value of life in a culture where we increasingly dehumanise others through our interactions in the real world and online
      - those who campaign against euthanasia worry about the potential of a slippery slope - that even some forms of euthanasia are permitted may lead to a pressure being put upon the vulnerable - elderly/disabled.
        
        points to a smilier decline in respect fro life when abortion was legalised. it was anticipated that a few thousand cases would occur each year on medical grounds, yet currently over 180,000 terminations take place each year in the UK
        
        in terms of euthanasia, campaigners worry about a growth in cases
      - ensures basic rights such as the right to life are respected, particularly in cases where those involved cannot speak up for themselves
    - - interpreting sanctity of life as saving life at all costs is self-defeating. it leads to people dying in horrible pain and does not treat human life with dignity and respect
      - seems to be at odds with people's autonomy in cases of voluntary euthanasia, where people who have sufficient mental capacity may request death
      - demands that all life must be saved at all costs. but given medical and technological advances, we are noe far better placed to know where treatment may lead to improvement and where t is pointless. we do not have to treat all people
      - is a religious concept that's out of place in an increasingly secular society. it is estimated that over 50% of people in the UK no longer believed in God and less than 10% regularly attend church
  - - - rejection of quality of life, NL doesn't place sufficient weight on human autonomy, seems odd as surely person concerned should be absolutely central to decisions about euthanasia
      - NL requires individuals to continue to live even when they are in extreme pain
        
        a utilitarian would argue that reduction of paining a focus on quality o life would be a better approach than NL
      - could be argued that double effect may in some ways be euthanasia by default. relies on u sknowing intention of the doctor
        
        distinction is not always easy to see between euthanasia, which NL rejects and causing death as a secondary effect of pain relief
      - NL can be legalistic and absolutist
        
        each person's situation is different, but the difficulty with NL is that it insists on a common approach
      - overly religious and dependent on its Christian roots
        
        euthanasia was often practised In the ancient world prior to the dominance of Christianity. it would seem that it should be allowed nowadays given that we are an increasingly secular society
    - - NL prevents individuals from playing God and making decisions about the lives of others
      - idea of double effect provides some flexibility in an otherwise rigid system. allows pain relief to continue despite the frailty and vulnerability of the patient
      - committed to the sanctity of life.
        
        life is valuable regardless pf anyones judgement about its quality thus NL avoids potential for a slippery slope to occur when life becomes increasingly less significant
  - - - SE lacks absolute boundaries and crictics of euthanasia express concern about a slippery slope that may idea to an increase in euthanasia cases, particularly for vulnerable people
      - like other teleological theories, SE requires a prediction of future consequences. this is not always possible in complex medical cases
      - SE can be seen as quite vague
        
        whist doing the moist loving thing is a good aim, there is little guidance on what this looks like in practic. may read that indivdulals differ as to what is the most loving thing to do
    - - modern technology and medical knowledge mans that we are better placed to know who is or is not worth treating than we might have been years ago
      - idea of agape understood correectlyis a good moral principle t hat puts people first. it is a clear improvement on utilitarian ideas of maximising happiness fro the majority
      - SE respects autonomy of individuals and recognises that he patient is th emost significant person in situation
      - flecibility of SE is very useful in this issue
        
        offers general principplesrather than fixed rules and this allows us to respond to complex and varying situations
  - - - autonomy is not a concept that is supported by sacred texts such as the Bible. there are specific commandments against taking of life, the idea very much being that the time of birth and death is something that is appointed by God
      - autonomy is a difficult cincept to apply in such a traumatic and stressful time. it id very difficult for someone in extreme mental/physical agony to have clarity of though too make good decisions about ending their life
      - NL would reject view this that autonomy is the most important consideration in issues such as euthanasia life us viewed
      - similarly, in non voluntary cases, particularly those involving vulnerable people, particularly those involving vulnerable people, there is a risk of decisions being made that are not in the persons best interets, as has happened on occasions with DNRs
    - - many of arguments against autonomy are based on a religious notion off sanctity of life, which becomes irrelevant if God does not exist. regardless of whether GodGod exists or not, the idea pf God is one that over 50% of people in UK do no tsupport, so autonomy seems a more appropriate concept for a secular age
      - SE supports the idea of autonomy. it is a key aspect of the idea of 'personalism' that we allow indivduals to make decisions about what is their own
  - - - one practical difficulty is that withdrawal of treatment is often a lengthy process and lead to medical resources being allocated to those who will not recover. while it sounds harsh, allowing active euthansia could speed ups inevitable process, thus freeing resources to focus on those who may recover
      - teleological approach that focuses on reducing pain and suffering would favour euthansia by whichever method was most helpful in alleviating suffering
      - idea of cdouble effect is complex and not entirely coherent. if the negative consequences is worsen then how can it be truly unintended?
      - SE challenges distinction between acts and omissions. there are cases where agape requires the compassionate response of helping someone to end their life; whether this by an act or an omission is not morally significant
    - - distinction between acts and omissions takes seriously issue of moral agency. if we were to allow active euthanasia, we would need doctors and other medical professionals to carry this out. this would conflict with the Hippocratic oath and cause anxieties for those physicians involved
      - for NL thinkers, actions do matter. preserving innocent life rues out acts that directly lead to death, although th eidea of double effect allows that some actions may lead to death not individual
- - - - go beyond and argue that that the rules of NL can be broken if there is a significant and proportionate reason to make an exception
      - in these cases, a proportrionalist, Daniel Maguire, argues that in some cases where biological life continues but a personhood is greatly diminished, shortening the process of dying is not in itself wrong
        
        this approach is condemned by the R C Church but it is not radically different from. the idea of double effect, and the issue of deterring intention would also0 apply here
- - - - any act that directly ends a person's life (whether voluntarily or not) is illegal
      - the law in the UK clearly states that there is a moral difference between medical intervention and non-intervention
    - - Fletcher would argue there is no moral difference between intervention and non-intervention if the outcome is positive and loving
      - Joseph Fletcher would argue that the outcome determines whether something is morally acceptable or not
    - - if God is the author of life, then it follows that he is the one who determines when it should end. it is not up to the individual whether he/she might add or subtract from his/her life because life is a gift or a loan from God
      - if someone takes direct action to end a person's life, they are acting as if they were God
  - - - in his work In Rethinking Life and Death (1994), Peter Singer sets out five quality of life commandments to replace those of the traditional sanctity of life position
      - in Genesis, humans are given dominion over the earth. this implies they have complete autonomy and should be allowed to make decisions for themselves
    - - K would argue that the categorical imperative is clear - if we do not want killing people universalised, then we should not accept euthanasia
      - NL and K ethics argue that we do not have complete autonomy
      - likewise, Aquinas' precepts say that society should be orderly and innocent life should be protected. autonomy goes against this
      - voluntary euthanasia Is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable
  - - - at 13, she decided din't want operation. she would rather die. appeared on TV programmes articulatley justifying her decision
      - 2008, 13 year old, hit the headlines. as a result of leukaemia and heart problems spent most of life in and out of hospitals. cancer in remission, but to stand any rate of survival she required a heart trasnplant within 10 years
    - - as a former semi-professional athlete, it was difficult for him to adjust to needing parents and carers to help him do everything. having made several unsuccessful attempts to kill himself, his parents accompanied him to Switzerland, where D died on 12 Sep 2008
      - his parents defended his decision, saying the was 'an intelligent young man of sound mind' who was 'not prepared to live what he felt was a second-class existence'
      - talented rugby player who played for England under-16s. during training session at Nuneaton Rugby Club in March 2007, he broke his spine and was left tparalysed from the chest down.
- - - - means a person's life is ended without their consent but wit the consent of someone representing their interests
      - Glover distinguishes non-voluntary euthanasia from involuntary e
        
        with involuntary, a person is killed against their wishes, such as when disabled people were killed by Nazi doctors - this is regarded as murder
        
        non voluntary should be in interest of the person who dies and not anyone else
    - - reasons for using this:
        
        suffering intolerable pain
        
        unable without assistance to end their life
        
        has an enduring, voluntary and competent wish to die
        
        unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure for that illness during what remains of they life
        
        suffering from a terminal illness
      - means the persons life ended at their request
    - - when doctors at Airedale Hospital in York
  - - - Biblical origins:
        
        the first book of the Old Testament (Genesis) describes how god made Adam, and: "Breather into hi nostrils the breath of life"
        
        Genesis also says that people are made "in the image of God"
      - Christians believe in this, there is something special and holy about life. for them human life is different because we share something of the nature of God
    - - Singer believes that people make decisions based on there quality of life > sanctity of life
      - quality of life principle
        
        takes the approach that a life is only worthwhile if it can fulfil those things which make life worth living
        
        eg someone having good physical and mental health, an education, financial stability
      - the scholar Peter Singer has strongly argues that it is now time to abandon the sanctity of life principle in favour of the non religious quality of life argument
      - his 5 quality of life commandments
        
        we should respect a person's desire to live or die
        
        we should only bring children into the world if they are wanted
        
        we should take responsibility for the consequences of our decisions to save or end life
        
        we should not discriminate on the basis of species
        
        we should recognise that the wotrth of human life varies
- - - - in many parts of Western Europe, people are becoming more secular (less religious). so religious teachings and concepts/laws arguably have less significance and importance.
      - Peter Singer jas strongly argued that it is now time to abandon the SOL principle in favour of the non-religious quality of life argument
      - SOL is a religious concept
    - - there is nothing intrinsicallygood about being alive besides enabling us to experience those things which are desired
        
        in other words, human life has to possess certainattributes to have value
      - the quality of life principle says that a life is only worthwile if it can fulfil those things which can make life worth living
    - - Christians and Jews make up a large proprtion of the UK. in the last census, nearly 50% of people considered themselves to be Christian. for them, the SOL has meaning in medical ethics
      - Genesis says that people are made "in the image of God" this means people are in some way reflections of God
      - is based on the Jewish and Christian biblical belief that life is a gift from God and is on loan to humans