euthanasia Flashcards
autonomy
stuart mill and singer
mill- non harm principle
we should be able to do what we want as long as it doesn’t cause harm to others. laws should be made ensure safety of others but private lives and decisions should be kept outside of the law.
singer- we should be free to pursue own personal interests and desires. right to make decisions about own death
supports of euthanasia appeal to autonomy
key aspect in determining your own life is to have ability to choose time and manner of our own death. links to quality of life in voluntary euthanasia where we make a judgement about type of life we are living
Jonathon glover issues with autonomy
external checks are required to check someones state of mind and that their descion is reasonable not a temporary emotional state. if diminished mental state not truly autonomous.
issues with non-voluntary euthanasia
if patient has given instructions about their wishes if they were ij such cases arguable is autonomy
e.g DNR or living wills where they state the circumstances they want treatment to stop.
what if changed their mind
case studies for autonomy
Daniel James- played England rugby u16s, during training paralysed chest down. relied on parents and careers to do everything, several attempts of suicide. parents accompanied to assisted-sucicide in Switzerland where died. parents “intelligent young man of sound mind who didn’t want to have a second-class existence”
Hannah Jones- leukaemia heart problems, most time in hospitable. cancer in remission to survive need heart transplant, constant drug treatment and replacement transplant in 10 years. At 13, didn’t want to go to hospital for operation, she would rather die.
supports for autonomy
- situation ethics supports autonomy. personalism = allow individual make decision about whats in their own interest
-arguments against autonomy based on religion and sanity of life. relies on existence of god which 50 percent of uk don’t support , autonomy more appropriator for a secular age.
weaknesses of autonomy
- natural law reject life is god-given and preservation of life.Bible 10 commandments only god takes life.
-autonomy difficult to apply to such traumatic/stressful time. in extreme agony mental and physical to have clarity to make good decisions about ending their life. in non voluntary cases there’s a risk of descion being made that aren’t in the persons best interests.
Acts and omissions distinction
an act that causes death is wrong, active euthanasia thru lethal injection or switching off life machine is wrong .
passive euthanasia which involves omissions such as withdrawal of treatment Tony bland remove feeding tube often viewed as trickier.
active euthanasia
a treatment is given that directly causes the death of an individual.
passive euthanasia
a treatment is withheld which indirectly causes the death of an individual.
James Rachels challenges the distinction between acts and omissions
case 1: smith is the legal guardian of his nephew and will inherit fortune if he dies before he is 18. parents died left money in trust for the boy. smith drowns boy in bath and makes it look like accident. the nephews death is an act of smith.
case 2: Jones is also legal guardian of nephew same position as smith resents kid wouldn’t intentionally harm him. the boy slips hit head on bath slowly drown jones does nothing to save him.
common held view in act and omissions is that smith more guilty.Raches believes equally bad and passive euthanasia is more cruel death takes longer. Tony bland removing feeding tube didn’t die tilll 10 days later.
singer challenge acts and omissions
not always distinct. removal of feeding tube, turning off dial stopping nutrients is an action even if the removal of food is an omission. death act or omission?
natural law acts and omissions
draw distinction between acts and omissions . intention of agent in key, double effect allow an act that leads to death only if unintended consequence of relieving pain.
situation ethics distinction acts and omissions
not great distinction, consequence most important and outcome isn’t changed whether act or omissions but act is quicker and therefore kinder
significant difference between acts and omissions support A02
natural law, action matters.preserving innocent life rules out the act euthanasia. double effect allows some actions to lead to death.
distinction between act and omissions take seriously moral agency issues. if we allowed active, doctors would have to carry this out, this conflicts Hippocratic oath and causes anxiety for physicians involved.
no significant difference
situation ethics challenges the distinction between acts/ omissions.agape requires a responses of helping ppl end their life whether act or omission not morally significant.
omissions issues:lengthy, medical resources allocated to those who won’t recover, active speed up process less suffering.
double effect not coherent. neg consequence foreseen hoe is it truly unintended.
