Abortion + Euthanasia Flashcards
An alternative to euthanasia
Palliative care
Key aspect of living which losing drives some to want euthanasia
Autonomy
Country where a lot of euthanasia takes place
Belgium
Is the word “terminal” included in the law to define when euthanasia can apply?
No, and it is unclear overall when it can apply which is leading situations it probably shouldn’t be used, for example depressed individuals versus terminally ill patients who are suffering. In some instances (assumably in Belgium) people were offered euthanasia when they weren’t even terminally ill!!
What do some think about euthanasia in relation to the law?
That it is in conflict with the law which normally calls for protection of life, not harming others. Medicine is normally curative or preventive, NOT for harm
One conflict for doctors being asked to perform euthanasia
Killing another person is intrinsically wrong to the doctor. It puts them in a very difficult position against their morals and directives, puts them under pressure, etc.
In Belgium (Flanders) does a family have to be notified before someone is given euthanasia?
Nope.
What do many psychologists say about psychological suffering?
It is very hard to measure, and it is very hard to declare that it is irreversible which makes it more difficult to scientifically or legally declare someone has met a threshold for euthanasia to be eligible or that either way the psychological problem will not resolve.
Counterpoint to argument that euthanasia allows someone to “die with dignity”
Living one’s life out to its natural end has dignity as well
Viable alternative to euthanasia
Palliative care. Many - 80-90% - who have iitially thought of euthanasia change their minds when they receive it.
Psycho Australian panel member woman says what about the living will
It’s going to include euthanasia more often as baby boomers age because previous generations died at 60 of heart disease and now they’re living in “terrible conditions”. Is aging naturally “terrible”? Some validity to her point is that if a person is completely debilitated, not of sound mind, no autonomy, in constant pain, etc., but not “terminal” per se, that person could want euthanasia
What does new medical technology mean for euthanasia?
Science can keep people alive much longer but beyond quality of life, which scares people to think they will be forced to live too long. Some people have DNR tattoed on them
What is a big problem for people at end of life?
Many have to get taken to the hospital to die which is their worst fear. Palliative car centers would be much better and de-risk that which could help reduce the number of people considering euthanasia to avoid that situation.
Peter Singer’s main points on euthanasia based on the video
He’s for it; if the patient is a competent adult making their own decision. A doctor doesn’t have to perform euthanasia, can refer elsewhere.
Best point in the euthanasia video
Philip Blond said it could create a sense of social pressure to not be a burden on others if the use of euthanasia is spreadking among older folks. Puts it very well, esp the age of vulnerability
What does MaryAnn Warren say is step one of solving the abortion debate?
How do we define the moral community which is the set of beings with full and equal moral rights so we can decide if the fetus is a member or not?
What is the moral community?
Those persons ascribed full and equal moral rights (Warren)
Thomas Jefferson attributed what to whom?
Inalienable rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness (to all men)
How does John Noonan define a human being?
Presence of human DNA, period, regardless of whether in or out of the womb.
Warren says Noonan doesn’t consider this when defining human beings
What the reason is for identifying the moral community with the set of all human beings, regardless of how we have chosen to define that term.
What does Mary Ann Warren define as necessary for personhood? Hint: CRACS
Mary Anne Warren’s criteria for personhood including Consciousness, Reason, (self motivated) Activity, Communication, Self Awareness. But then she says it’s hard to define exact measures of all and all may not be necessary for personhood. Filling the holes in her own theory ahead of time. She then says a fetus would be disqualified if it had none of these and everyone should agree with that.
Who does Warren say should have full moral rights?
Persons
Personhood is what kind of concept
Moral
Warren says this about why “human being” is often used in context of explaining why someone has rights
Either that the expression “human being” is used in the sense of personhood, not genetic humanity, or because genetic and moral senses have been confused.
What does Warren say about a fetus relative to criteria of personhood?
A fetus is not yet a person and therefore doesn’t have full moral rights and to ascribe them would be “absurd”. So great at dinner parties.
Warren says the more like a person a “being” aka fetus / young person becomes, the stronger the case for
Right to life. She then conflates her CRACS conditions to this concept, saying they’re “no different” when determining “personhood”. Convenient to make conditions to prove her own concepts.
Warren states that having “recognizably human facial and other features”, “detectable brain activity” or “the capacity to survice outside the uterus” are
“simply not among the relevant attributes” that ascribe personhood. “Thus it is clear that even though a 7 or 8 month old fetus has features which make it apt to arouse in us almost the same powerful protective instinct as is commonly aroused by a small infant, nevertheless it is not significantly more personlike than is a very small embryo”. Further “it is somewhat more personlike…can apparently feel and respond to pain…may even have a rudimentary form of consciousness…as its brain is quite active. Nevertheless, it seems ‘safe’ to say it is not fully conscious…cannot reason or communicate, does not self motivate, and has no self awareness.” Further “thus, in the relevant aspects, a fetus, even a fully developed one, is considerably less person-like than the average fish.” Wow.
More Warren. She says “A rational person must conclude that based on its resemblance to a person, it cannot be said to have any more right to live than a newborn guppy…and that a right of that magnitude could never override a woman’s right to obtain an abortion at any stage of her pregnancy”.
What does Warren say about late-stage abortion?
There used to be valid arguments to the safety of the mother in late stage, but there are now new techniques for inducing labor in the third trimester which has mitigated those concerns. Therefore, abort away as late as you want. More, she says that fact that people are repulsed by the concept of late stage abortion should have no meaning since emotional responses cannot take the place of moral reasoning. Nor can concerns about other affects be considered, ie increase in acceptance of concept of euthanasia or crime by devaluing life.
According to Warren, how about an abortion in the 7th month to avoid missing a trip to Europe?
Sure! It might be “indecent”, but that doesn’t mean it’s immoral.
Warren’s thoughts about whether fetuses having the POTENTIAL to turn into persons matters
There does seem to be “something immoral” (congratulations for finally getting that right) about “wantonly destroying potential people BUT even if a potential person does have some prima facie right to life, it could not possibly outweigh the right of the woman to obtain an abortion since the rights of an actual person outweigh the rights of a potential person”. That, admittedly, is a sound argument even if I don’t agree with it. However, in one case we’re talking about KILLING a potential person, in the other we’re talking about requiring a woman to follow through with a pregnancy she agreed to begin through actions (assuming non rape, incest, etc. of course). Why, then, would a woman’s rights to convenience outweight a potential person’s rights to life? Like murderers, didn’t the mother give up her rights to not be pregnant when she engaged in sexual intercourse which IS the act of reproduction? Didn’t she also participate because this is what humans are driven to do?
What is so flawed about Warren’s “alien potential people” thought experiment?
In it the human person must die in order for the alieans to make millions of potential people from his cells. The mother doesn’t need to die to bring the potential person into the world and if she would that would usually be grounds for abortion although some mothers might still think otherwise.
Pojman’s work that we read
Death & Criteria
Famous case debating when death occurs
Grey v Swayer. She got decapitated but since her heart beat for another period of time and his stopped first they declated him dead first which affected payout to heirs
