Euthanasia Flashcards
What is the strong/weak Sanctity of Life principle?
Strong Sanctity of Life Principle: Because God created human life, he is the only one who can take away life.
Weak Sanctity of Life Principle: Suggests that the Strong principle fails to consider Jesus’ teachings on compassion. Sometimes Quality of Life might be more compassionate.
What is biblical evidence supporting the Sanctity of Life principle?
Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not kill.”
“Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit… you do not belong to yourself.” - 1 Corinthians 6:19.
“Whoever sheds humans blood, by humans shall their blood be shed.” - Genesis 9:6.
What is the Quality of Life principle?
Refers to how happy or unhappy a life is. Whether someone is in pain, is unable to think, breathe, eat independently, etc.
Who is a proponent of the Quality of Life principle and what criteria does he suggest for it?
Peter Singer’s criteria for personhood are rationality and self-consciousness. He distinguishes between ‘persons’ (rational, self-conscious individuals) and humans (members of our species.) Not all humans are persons.
If we think about why we see killing as wrong, it’s because we are depriving life from someone who wants to live. But if someone wants to die, then that should be okay. Non-voluntary euthanasia of babies or patients in a vegetative state could also be killed because they have no conception of their lives continuing.
What is the ‘slippery slope’ argument?
Archbishop Fisher argues that wherever euthanasia is legalised, it is extended to more and more people. He argues that vulnerable people like the elderly might consider dying because they feel like a burden. Western culture values success and motivation, and those who fall short might seek out euthanasia as a means to remove themselves from a society that they cannot partake in.
Fisher concludes that proponents of euthanasia see themselves as compassionate, when in reality, they are unwitting executioners for the vulnerable.
How does Singer respond to the ‘slippery slope’ argument?
People who receive euthanasia in Oregon are disproportionately white, educated and not particularly elderly. 1 in 3000 deaths is via euthanasia, suggesting no manifestation of a slippery slope.
However, Fisher’s argument is not a criticism of euthanasia per se. It highlights the danger of allowing euthanasia in an unsupported culture where vulnerable people suffer.
What is the deontological view of autonomy and how does it relate to euthanasia?
Nozick is a libertarian. He argued for the principle of ‘self-ownership’ meaning we have property rights over our selfhood and our body. This results in a deontological view of euthanasia: if someone wants to die, that is their right as a property owner.
What is the consequentialist view of autonomy and how does it relate to euthanasia?
Singer’s consequentialist approach to euthanasia was influenced by Mill. Mill emphasises individual freedom and argues that individuals know what is best for themselves and have the motivation to live the best possible life. Therefore, euthanasia should be left to the autonomy of a competent adult.
How could one make a consequentialist view of autonomy and euthanasia less susceptible to the slippery slope argument?
By pairing consequentialism with rationality.
Sometimes individuals can make irrational choices for themselves, even if they have Quality of Life, not taking their long-term interests into account.
To avoid ethical issues, rationality should be added as a condition for autonomy. A young heartbroken person would not make a rational calculation if they decide to die. By adding rationality as a condition, it prevents short-sighted reasons for euthanising someone.
What would Situation Ethics say about the validity of Euthanasia?
Fletcher rejects the Bible as a legalistic “rules book”, so it follows that he rejects the Sanctity of Life principle.
Rather, Fletcher argues that euthanasia is viable where it produces the most Agape. In situations where someone is sick and has an autonomous wish to die, euthanasia is the most loving thing. However, Fletcher wouldn’t accept euthanasia after someone has been coerced to do it, or because of a temporary problem.
Is Situation Ethics’ response to euthanasia problematic because of the subjectivity of love?
YES: Love is too subjective to be applied to euthanasia. Nazis may have thought it loving to euthanise disabled people against their will. What if someone would wish to be euthanised if they were in the situation the patient was in? Like a Nazi wishing to be euthanised if he was Jewish or disabled. It would still be “loving your neighbour as yourself” in a twisted sense.
NO: Love is relative, Agape is not. Agape involves selfless love of your neighbour.
What would Natural Law say about the validity of euthanasia?
Natural Law would be against euthanasia because it violates the primary precepts of preserving life, and if the ‘slippery slope’ analogy is factored in, it could lead to a disordered society. It is dangerous to give humans the power over life and death because we will be corrupted by it.
What does the Catholic Church say about euthanasia?
Agrees with Natural Law but notes some exceptions due to the Doctrine of Double Effect.
Passive euthanasia by stopping medical services is acceptable because death is simply inevitable and we are just not preventing it anymore.
It is permissible to allow someone to take a high dosage of pain killers, even if they could die, as long as death isn’t the intended effect.
How does Singer criticise the approach to euthanasia the Catholic Church takes?
He says that they act “as if they do nit really believe it.” The Church allows passive euthanasia if treatment is “burdensome”, but the person is in a coma and cannot feel the pressure pf a burden. Singer concludes the only way to justify removal of treatment is to ascribe a positive quality to life, so the Catholic Church unwittingly draws from the Quality of Life view.
Why is Natural Law outdated when applied to euthanasia?
It was probably more useful to ban almost all killing in the medieval times where killing was more common and people were less-educated and lacked self-control.
However, society is now more educated and can afford to be more flexible with its morals. Euthanasia isn’t killing en-masse, it’s killing with an altruistic purpose.
