Euthanasia Flashcards
Euthanasia - introduction
> Comes from the Greek words for a ‘good death’
>A controversial issue - should people be able to end their own or others lives at a time of their own choosing?
Euthanasia - Sanctity of life
> Life is special, sacred, holy, and has an intrinsic worth
This belief is often held for religious reasons - gift from God, made in the image of God
Non-religious people may think this because of reason and free-will
Some believe that ALL life is sacred
Bible can be used as support - ‘So God created mankind in his own image’ (Genesis 1:27)
Bible can also be used to question - God commands war
Can be used as an argument against euthanasia- no one has the right to take life away
A breakable moral rule - can sometimes be moral to take life
Euthanasia - Sanctity of life - Slippery slope argument
> Once life is considered to be less than sacred in some cases. It undermines all human dignity and allows people to be treated as disposable
Euthanasia - Quality of life
> Often bought into debates about euthanasia as a counter-argument to ‘sanctity of life’ beliefs
Considers how much enjoyment and fulfilment someone is getting given their state of physical and mental health. Looks into the future at the prognosis of their condition.
Considers whether the life is worth living or whether bringing about death would be preferable
Some people argue that if someone has a debilitating, painful, or terminal condition then they should not be compelled to live until they die naturally
Commonly considered in cases of animal welfare
Euthanasia - Personhood
> What makes a living thing a person? If a living thing is not a person then perhaps it doesn’t have the same rights as persons do
In order to be a person there must be awareness of self and others, and an ability to interact with the world
In order to be a person the only requirement is to be human
Other species should also be considered as persons or that personhood is a sliding scale
Linked to capacities and functions - raises issues about foetuses or people with severe brain damage
Question of potential is also an issue of personhood - should a living thing have dignity and rights because of what it has the potential to become?
Euthanasia - Voluntary euthanasia
> Hippocratic oath obliges doctors to do good and avoid evil.
When a patients life is ended upon their own request and is illegal in the UK but legal in some other countries (Switzerland)
The focus of legal challenges when people in very difficult circumstances challenge the law
Euthanasia - Voluntary euthanasia - For
> A key argument in support is that people should have the right to avoid pain and choose a gentle and painless death as long as it is done rationally
Suicide is an option for abled people and it is discriminatory not to allow it for disabled people (how the fuck would you argue this point in an essay)
Euthanasia - Voluntary euthanasia - Against
> Some argue against because the person may change their mind but not be able to communicate it
Allowing this will encourage unscrupulous people to put pressure on sick relatives to end their lives when they don’t want to
Puts doctors and health professionals in an impossible position
Euthanasia - Non-voluntary euthanasia
> Euthanasia without the request of the patient
Could happen in cases of severe brain damage, when a baby is born with multiple complications, or when someone is incapable of communication
Medical science has progressed to the extent where people with severe loss of brain function can be kept alive artificially for a long time
Some people write ‘living wills’ to clarify their wishes if they were to become incapable of function
Euthanasia - Non-voluntary euthanasia - For
> Most compassionate course of action when someone has no prospect of having an acceptable standard of brain function
Euthanasia - Non-voluntary euthanasia - Against
> It is not for us to decide what is an acceptable standard of brain function
There is never a point where medical professionals can be certain that there is no hope of improvement
Euthanasia - Active vs non-treatment
Active - Doing something to bring about death
Non-treatment - Ceasing treatment to bring about death
Euthanasia - Applying natural law
> Do good avoid evil, preserve life
Life is a gift from God
Catholics - euthanasia is wrong
An apparent good
There is no obligation under NML to go to great lengths to keep someone alive when treatment is ‘burdensome’ and nor meaningful
Double-effect, someone’s pain treatment could shorten life - the intention is not to kill therefore the action is not wrong
Lack higher function - rules about treatment might not apply
Euthanasia - Applying natural law: + and -
> Clear guidance
Respects religious beliefs about SoL
Doesn’t leave people vulnerable to unscrupulous relatives
Avoids a ‘slippery slope’
Unsympathetic
Medical advances make it hard to tell if some treatment should be seen as ‘burdensome’ or ‘extraordinary’
Euthanasia - Applying situation ethics
> Take into account each individual’s personal situation
Euthanasia can be justified if it will bring about the most loving outcome for the patient and their friends and family
Fletcher - QoL is more important than SoL
