Euthanasia

Question 1

Voluntary euthanasia

Answer 1

voluntary euthanasia – that a person’s life is ended at their
request or with their consent
* voluntary euthanasia in the case of incurable or terminal
illness
making free choice to have life ended (conscious + understands) e.g. a terminal patient

Question 2

Non voluntary euthanasia

Answer 2

non-voluntary euthanasia – that a person’s life is ended
without their consent but with the consent of someone
representing their interests
* non-voluntary euthanasia in the case of a patient who is in a
persistent vegetative state.

Question 3

Involuntary euthanasia

Question 4

Case study for non voluntary euthanasia

Answer 4

When doctors at Airedale Hospital in Yorkshire asked the High Court for permission to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from Hillsborough victim Tony Bland, his family supported the application.
After the Hillsborough stadium tragedy, Tony was left in a persistent vegetative state - and hence was not legally dead. His parents believed their son would not want to be kept alive in such a condition. They petitioned the court to sanction the withdrawal of hydration and artificial nutrition, which it did.

Question 5

Case study for voluntary euthanasia

Answer 5

In the real case of Simon’s choice, a man was diagnosed with motor neurone disease and in months ahead lost control of his bodily functions and was dependent on support. Simon made the choice to go to Switzerland to die. Natural law would not have permitted this as it breaks the precept of the sanctity of life however situation ethics would allow Simon’s choice to die based on his quality of life. The shows the more practical and reasonable approach of situation ethics is more useful.

Question 6

Situation Ethics view on Euthanasia

Answer 6

from the point of view of situation ethics, the only concept
which is relevant with regard to euthanasia is which decision
produces the most agapeic love
. Situation ethics allows the practice of euthanasia as it focuses on the quality of life more. Firstly, Fletcher’s view of agape is much stronger as it accounts for the most loving thing to do. In certain situations, the most loving thing is to switch of the life support machine so that a person’s suffering is ended. The most loving thing to do allows the families of patients to say goodbye allows for patient’s to assess future possible situations themselves through living wills. Situation ethics follows the propositions of pragmatism, personalism, positivism and relativism. Each one important to the issue of euthanasia. Pragmatism allows a practical approach to euthanasia and where practicality of a situation is focused on. Personalism puts people above laws so full agape can be achieved. Although a partly legalistic theory situation ethics is also antinomian where people should be making their own decisions above the law. Positivism allows the practice of euthanasia because in most cases a positive effect is being produced. Relativism is most important because it allows the situation to be weighed on a case by case basis (natural law is unable to do this as it is absolute). These propositions provide more clarification on euthanasia and allow the issue of euthanasia to be clarified.

pragmatism: each case judged according to its merits. using limited resources to keep a terminally ill patient alive at the cost of others is wrong.
relativism: killing innocent people is not always wrong because you have to judge the situation. life is given to us to use wisely.
positivism: no law that states life must be saved at all costs. laws and rules are for humane treatment of each other, this might mean allowing someone to die.
personalism: respect for autonomy and integrity. their life may no longer to or value to them: respect this. humanity is more than biological existence.

Question 7

Passive Euthanasia

Answer 7

removal of life-sustaining treatment such as life support machines to allow natural death

Question 8

Active Euthanasia

Answer 8

directly causing death e.g. lethal injection by doctor

Question 9

Natural Law view on Voluntary Euthanasia

Answer 9

-Primary precepts: Preserve life, ordered society, worship God
Natural Law is focused on the primary precepts and upholding its main components; worship God, live in an ordered society, reproduce, to learn and to defend the innocent. Euthanasia goes against possibly three of these primary precepts, and is therefore forbidden under natural law. The secondary precepts would argue that euthanasia is wrong as it goes against the precepts of defending the innocent. Killing someone voluntarily or non-voluntarily and worshipping God as only God should be able to take life away. In a period where quality of life is emphasised, natural law is incompatible with modern culture. Natural Law upholds the sanctity of life and any practice taking away life is wrong – in a society which allows this natural law is outdated. Aquinas lived when the church dominated society and culture and now the church and state are separate, showing now natural law should be adapted.
-4 tiers of law: divine law and human law
the application of Aquinas’s four tiers of law; euthanasia
breaks Divine Law –- the law of God revealed in the
Bible particularly in the Ten Commandments and the
Sermon on the Mount – and therefore is always wrong
 the view of Aquinas’s natural law that human life has a
telos and that euthanasia prevents this being reached
-sanctity of life
-Apparent good - not using reason correctly
from the point of view of natural law, the religious concept of
sanctity of life is relevant with regard to euthanasia because it
upholds the primary precept of preservation of life
life is sacred because it has god-given soul and there are no ordinary or extraordinary reasons to end life from conception until natural death.

life is set apart by god: we are created in the image and likeness of god. this shows we are set apart from everything else, we have a spark of divinity. the incarnation of jesus also supports this: there is a value in the human life, otherwise jesus could and would have come as a sheep.
gift from god: if god is the creator of life, he should be the terminator, too. we cannot choose if we or someone else dies, only god. because it is a gift.
innocent life is to be respected: the command to not murder is part of the social glue between people. there is also a command to choose life.
life is to be loved and protected: love requires respect and protection of all humans. good samaritan shows this. love is central.

Question 10

Peter Singer

Answer 10

Singer believes that people nowadays make decisions based on their quality of life rather than sanctity of life.
The quality of life principle takes the approach that a life is only worthwhile if it can fulfil those things which make life worth living.
For example, someone having good physical and mental health, an education, financial stability.

Question 11

John Stuart Mill

Question 12

Key working principles to apply to euthanasia

Answer 12

Personalism
Relativism

Question 13

James Rachels: Acts and Omissions - Passive Euthanasia

Answer 13

Nephew drowning in bath scenario

he outcome is the judge of good or bad. acts and omissions is important: the difference doing something immoral and not doing it. if a doctor refrains from giving life-saving drugs, he has not killed them but allowed them to die. for a consequentialist, this refraining is still an act of helping death. both doing and not doing are immoral because the patient dies.

Question 14

Indirect euthanasia

Answer 14

Use of diamorphine in Uk hospital
NL allows under double effect rule

Question 15

Natural Law view on Passive Euthanasia

Answer 15

Okay- np w redrawal of treatment

Question 16

Negative evaluation of Sanctity of Life applied to euthanasia

Answer 16

scientific advances in medical understanding and treatment in
21st century mean that the religious concept of sanctity of life
is not relevant with regard to euthanasia

the religious concept of sanctity of life is based on beliefs in
God and God as creator of human life - which are not
accepted by many - and is therefore not relevant

the religious concept of sanctity of life is not relevant because
the only concept that is relevant is what is in the best interests
of the patient and the patient’s family and loved ones

the religious concept of sanctity of life is not relevant because
the only concept that is relevant is quality of life – that human
life has to possess certain attributes in order to have value

with regard to a patient who is in a persistent vegetative state,
the religious concept of sanctity of life is not relevant because
whilst their body may be alive, there is no longer any real life.

Question 17

Positive evaluation of Sanctity of Life applied to euthanasia

Answer 17

regardless of scientific advances, the religious concept of
sanctity of life is relevant as it keeps the idea that human life
has unique value and should be given respect

globally, beliefs in God and God as creator of human life, are
still significant and therefore belief in sanctity of life is relevant
with regard to euthanasia

Question 18

Personal Autonomy view on Euthanasia

Answer 18

from the point of view of a person’s autonomy, the religious concept of sanctity of life is not relevant as each person should have complete control over their own life and decisions
made about it the value of life comes from being able to determine one’s future: to have autonomy. Mill developed the liberal principle: that humans are the best judge of their own happiness and should be given maximum freedom to live their lives as they see fit. he argued self-harm is not a reason to interfere. the problems here are:

how is harm defined?
if the person is irrational, either too young or mentally ill, is it okay to interfere?
allows for paternalism, if it is in someone’s best interest to over-rule their autonomy.

In Genesis, humans are given dominion over the earth. This implies they have complete autonomy and should be allowed to make decisions for themselves.

Question 19

Positive evaluation of quality of life in euthanasia decisions

Answer 19

Euthanasia is being widely adopted in modern western cultures as secularism is becoming more popular. There is more emphasis being placed on the quality of life rather then sanctity of life. Natural Law theory places special emphasis on the sanctity of life arguing that only God should have the power to take away a life.

Question 20

Negative evaluation of SE in euthanasia

Answer 20

owever, situation ethics can be criticised. By describing it as relativism, euthanasia is judged on a case by case basis, which can lead to dangerous precedents. If someone is allowed to be euthanased because they are blind, it could influence other people. With sensory issues to seek euthanasia. Even if they have a decent quality of life. Euthanasia can thereby lead to a slippery slope, where euthanasia becomes too common. This raises the question of where to draw the line with euthanasia, and situation ethics provides no guidance on this. Also doctors swear by the Hippocratic Oath, to uphold the life of the patient. Situation ethics dismisses this – instead going against the doctor’s primary role. A judgement is made about the future: in some cases a patient may get better. Overall however, these weaknesses don’t create a strong enough basis for dismissing situation ethics.

Question 21

Evaluation of NML vs SE in Euthanasia decisions

Answer 21

On balance, therefore natural law is of no help in regard to the issue of euthanasia and instead situation ethics should be adopted. Situation ethics is stronger as it takes a teleological approach seeking to uphold the quality of life – this secures someone’s autonomy and secular views which are being adopted by western societies – such as Switzerland. Natural law is also absolute and deontological, upholding the sanctity of life which seems outdated. The precepts are also incomplete with modern society Fletcher’s four working principles are much more practical and relevant. Overall therefore natural law is of no help with regard t the issue of euthanasia and instead situation ethics should be adopted.

Question 22

Evaluation against Sanctity of Lif argment

Answer 22

no one has a duty to endure extreme pain
life is a gift, not a burden: if we are given a gift, we should use it responsibly and dispose of it as we have free will to do. we are stewards of this life, so we are in control of ending it if we wish.

Question 23

Jonathan Glover

Answer 23

Jonathan Glover argues that being alive is not enough for life to be valuable. killing is not wrong if a person is not conscious. the body is an instrument to enable conscious experience. he supports non-voluntary for PVS patients. but what about people with dementia or brain damage where consciousness is reduced?

Glover distinguishes non-voluntary euthanasia from involuntary euthanasia.
With involuntary euthanasia, a person is killed against their wishes, such as when disabled people were killed by Nazi doctors — this is regarded as murder.
Non-voluntary euthanasia should be in the interest of the person who dies and not anyone else.

Question 24

Quality of life

Answer 24

The quality of life principle says that a life is only worthwhile if it can fulfil those things which make life worth living.
There is nothing intrinsically good about being alive besides enabling us to experience those things which are desired.
In other words, human life has to possess certain attributes to have value.

Question 25

Negative view of autonomy

Answer 25

Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable.
Natural law and Kantian ethics argue that we do not have complete autonomy.
Kant would argue that the categorical imperative is clear – if we do not want killing people universalised, then we should not accept euthanasia.
Likewise, Aquinas’ precepts say that society should be orderly and innocent life should be protected. Autonomy goes against this.