Euthanasia Flashcards
(31 cards)
Strong Sanctity of Life
Human life is sacred because God created it, and only God has the right to end it.
Supported by conservative Catholics and Protestants, with Catholics also using Natural Law ethics for justification.
Biblical support:
“Thou shalt not murder” (6th commandment).
1 Corinthians 6:19: the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, implying life is a gift from God and we do not have the right to take it.
Life is sacred because humans are created in God’s image, making it valuable.
Weak Sanctity of Life
Criticises the strong version by emphasising that while life is sacred, other Biblical principles like compassion should also be considered.
The strong sanctity of life view can lead to unnecessary suffering, as it prioritises life over compassion for quality of life.
Compassion is important but should not justify overriding the sanctity of life in the Bible.
The Bible emphasises compassion, but it does not permit overriding the sanctity of life for compassionate reasons.
Quality of Life
Refers to how happy or unhappy a life is. Proponents of this view argue that life must have a certain quality to be considered worth living, especially in the context of euthanasia.
Peter Singer’s View on Quality of Life
Believes quality of life is crucial in euthanasia decisions.
Supports non-voluntary euthanasia for babies with incurable conditions (e.g., spina bifida).
Criteria for personhood: rationality and self-consciousness; not all humans are considered persons.
Argues that the sanctity of life belief is influenced by Christian views on afterlife and God’s ownership.
Suggests that if someone voluntarily requests euthanasia, it is not wrong because they don’t want to continue living.
Slippery Slope Argument (Archbishop Anthony Fisher)
Warns that legalizing euthanasia may lead to broader applications, as seen in the Netherlands (initially for the terminally ill, then later for babies).
Concerns about vulnerable groups (e.g., the elderly, disabled) feeling pressured to choose euthanasia due to societal values of success and productivity.
Cites a 2022 case in Canada where financial hardship influenced requests for euthanasia.
Counterarguments to Fisher (Peter Singer)
Points out that in Oregon, euthanasia disproportionately affects white, educated individuals, not vulnerable groups.
Argues that the spread of euthanasia is not widespread, with only 1 in 3,000 deaths resulting from euthanasia in Oregon.
Suggests genetic screening and abortion reduce non-voluntary euthanasia cases.
Fisher’s arguments focus more on societal issues (lack of support for vulnerable people) rather than criticising euthanasia itself.
Suggests that euthanasia can be justified if combined with proper societal support for vulnerable groups.
Autonomy
Refers to an individual’s freedom to make their own choices about their life. It is not directly a view on the value of life, but it holds that the individual should decide if their life is valuable.
Two approaches to autonomy:
deontological (absolutist) and consequentialist.
Deontological (Absolutist) View of Autonomy (Nozick)
Advocated by Nozick, who believes in self-ownership, meaning individuals have absolute rights over their lives and bodies, including the right to choose euthanasia if they want to die.
Nozick’s view is based on individual freedom, but it is criticised for leading to decisions made on short-term, emotional reasons (e.g., someone choosing euthanasia while temporarily depressed).
Consequentialist View of Autonomy (Singer)
Singer adopts a more consequentialist approach, arguing that autonomy should not be absolute.
He opposes euthanasia in cases where individuals have treatable conditions or are in temporary distress (e.g., depression).
Singer is influenced by Mill, who argued that individual freedom leads to happiness and that people are best suited to judge what is good for them. This supports the idea that euthanasia should be left to competent adults
Slippery Slope Argument vs. Consequentialist Autonomy
Archbishop Fisher argues that if autonomy is used to justify euthanasia, it leads to a slippery slope, as it becomes hard to restrict euthanasia to just the most applicable cases (e.g., individuals in extreme suffering).
Fisher believes that to consistently support autonomy, it must be absolutist (like Nozick), but this has serious moral downsides. He suggests that autonomy should not be the guiding principle for euthanasia.
Coherent Consequentialist View with Rationality (avoiding slippery slope argument)
A rationality condition can be added to consequentialist autonomy to avoid the slippery slope.
Individuals should be able to make decisions based on long-term self-interest, not temporary emotions or irrational impulses (e.g., someone seeking euthanasia due to a short-term emotional crisis would not be acting rationally).
This approach ensures euthanasia is only permitted when decisions are rational and well-considered, avoiding the ethical problems associated with absolute autonomy.
Situation ethics on euthanasia: Fletcher’s Rejection of Legalism
Fletcher rejects the Bible as a legalistic “rules book” and views it instead as an editorial collection offering general themes and suggestions.
The central theme in the Bible is agape (selfless love), which allows for flexibility in ethical decision-making, including rejecting the sanctity of life principle.
Situation Ethics Application to Euthanasia
Situation ethics would judge euthanasia as morally good if it maximizes agape (selfless love).
However, euthanasia would be wrong if it is done in situations where it does not maximize agape, such as when a person is pressured by family or society, or when the desire for euthanasia is based on short-term emotional issues.
Example: Fletcher would accept euthanasia for someone with low quality of life and a genuine autonomous wish to die, but not if the person is being coerced or influenced by external pressures.
Situation Ethics subjectivity of Love in Euthanasia
Situation ethics bases decisions on love, but love is subjective, leading to challenges in ethical consistency (e.g., the Nazis’ forced euthanasia programs, which they claimed were done out of love).
Defence of Fletcher: Agape is selfless love, and it involves loving others as oneself. Thus, pressuring someone into euthanasia is not an act of agape.
W. Barclay’s Criticism of Situation Ethics on Euthanasia (with Fletcher and Robinson)
Barclay argues that people are not perfectly loving and can be corrupted by power. If given the freedom to decide on euthanasia, some may act selfishly or cruelly, such as pressuring others for financial gain.
Fletcher and Robinson argue that humanity has “come of age,” becoming more educated and self-controlled, so they can now be trusted with more autonomy in making moral decisions.
Barclay disagrees, believing that the freedom to choose without legal oversight would lead to selfish and cruel decisions, echoing the idea that power corrupts.
Psychological Considerations of Situation Ethics
Psychology, like the Stanford prison experiment, and literature, like Lord of the Flies, suggest that power can corrupt individuals.
The freedom to make moral decisions without external rules could lead to unethical behavior, supporting Barclay’s view that autonomy can lead to morally corrupt actions.
Natural Law and Euthanasia
Natural law claims that humans should follow both divine law (biblical teachings) and natural law, which comes from God and is accessible through human reason.
The primary precept of natural law is to protect and preserve human life, meaning euthanasia directly violates this principle.
Additionally, euthanasia disrupts the order of society, as failure to follow God’s design leads to disharmony and immorality. This view echoes the idea that society will break down if life is no longer valued as sacred, as seen in Mother Teresa’s warning about abortion leading to societal collapse.
Catholic Church on Euthanasia
The Catholic Church accepts the principle of double effect, allowing for passive euthanasia (withdrawing life support or administering painkillers that may hasten death) if the intention is not to end life directly.
Direct (active) euthanasia is always deemed morally unacceptable, but passive euthanasia can be justified if the treatment is considered disproportionate or burdensome.
The Church allows for administering high doses of painkillers even if death is foreseen, as long as the intention is not to cause death.
Singer’s criticism of The Catholic Church on Euthanasia
He argues that the Church inconsistently applies the sanctity of life principle by allowing passive euthanasia, particularly in cases where life support does not impose a “burden” on unconscious patients, implying a quality of life view rather than an absolute sanctity of life.
Criticism of Natural Law and the Sanctity of Life Principle: Outdated
Sociologically, the principles of natural law and sanctity of life were designed in a time when society was chaotic, and strict rules were needed to maintain order. However, in modern society, these principles seem outdated as society is more educated and self-controlled.
The principle of no killing may have made sense in medieval times to curb violence, but modern society can consider more flexible approaches to ethics, particularly with regard to euthanasia.
The primary precepts may be viewed as a product of their socio-economic context, making them irrelevant in the modern world. Aquinas may have been intuiting principles that fit his time, rather than discovering timeless truths from God.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Religious Ethics
While religious ethics can motivate adherence to moral principles, the claim that they come from God makes them rigid and resistant to progress, which leads to their being seen as increasingly outdated in the modern world.
Active euthanasia
Active euthanasia is when the person is killed by some positive action such as lethal injection, usually by a Doctor.
Situation ethics would likely regard active euthanasia as morally better than passive euthanasia, since it is quicker which can mean less suffering, which seems the more loving option.
The sanctity of life view would regard active and passive euthanasia as equally wrong since all life is sacred and must therefore be preserved.
Passive euthanasia
Passive euthanasia is when no one performs an action which results in the death of the person but they are left to die by natural means, either by the result of their illness if they have one or simply by removing life-support machine equipment or even stopping giving them food.
The death takes longer and unless they are unconscious in a coma or brain dead, is more painful. However, the moral difference is that no one performed an action of killing them.
The Catholic Church’s use of Natural law regards passive euthanasia as being potentially justifiable in certain circumstances under the double effect, so long as the intention is to accept ‘one’s inability to impede’ death.
Voluntary euthanasia
Voluntary euthanasia is when a person has the mental capacity to choose euthanasia.
