Euthanasia vs NL Flashcards
Point one - Sanctity of life
Goes against the primary precept of self-preservation and the secondary precept, which are ‘proximate convulsions of reason’ of defending the innocent. Therefore, forbidden under NL as it negates God’s law revealed through the Bible “thou shalt, not murder” (Matthew), and mocks how all humans are made in the image of God (all life is thus sacred) and so God should be the only being that can take life away.
Point one - advantages
- removes responsible from relatives and medical professionals from having to make very painful decisions at times when emotions are running high
-Supported biblically Job ‘ The lord gives and the lord takes away’
Point one - disadvantages
Not everyone (within the Western world especially) has such a belief in God and thus should not be required to uphold the Sanctity of life and have the autonomous right to their own lives
Mill’s - ‘Over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign’ - People regarded as having the right to autonomy over their own lives.
Point one - counter
Jonathan Glover– if they are making the decision in a diminished mental state then they cannot be truly autonomous
-By the clear guidelines that NL provides it prevents immoral actions and does not diminish the gift that is life and prevents a world where suicide is the norm
Point two - slippery slope
If one case is allowed in one situation, then it is unclear when Euthanasia should be applied to other situations. NL creating guidelines that can be applied in all situations so that a person is not forced/ accidentally ends their life: Synderesis principle ‘to do good and avoid evil’
Point two advantages
Hippocratic oath - Doctors in the 21st century take it, it obliges them to of good and avoid harm. This also does not put the Doctor in moral dilemmas on whether the end of a life is permissible, and stops the patients from being pessimistic in their diagnosis
Psychologically a better mental situation is proven to improve the physical condition of the patient. If they lose hope and have the option to turn to suicide it may lead to an increased death rate
Point two disadvantages
It is also pointless to help someone who cannot overcome disease and, in a situation, where medicine is powerless so although to actively pass out Euthanasia is wrong omission is not (passive Euthanasia)
Point two counter (acts and omissions)
Yet Rachels challenges this viewpoint: Suppose Jones will also inherit a fortune if his young nephew dies and as he enters the bathroom he sees his nephew slip, hit his head and drown. He watches and does nothing – this is an ‘omission’ as Jones could have saved him
-Thus, both passive and active Euthanasia should not be permitted
Point two - counter to Rachels
But what if the person is in a state of extreme suffering? Surely it is immoral to keep someone who has no hope of getting better (Tony Bland – vegetative state) should be able to receive Euthanasia
Why is the counter to Rachels flawed
The doctrine of Double effect: though administering a drug may shorten their life it is acceptable provided the intention is to relieve pain and the shortening of life is an unintended secondary effect
Point three - SE VS NL
Situation Ethics vs Natural Law (Taking a situational approach)
When suffering of a patient is so great that their life becomes unbearable, they should be able to end it as this is seen to be the most loving action.
Natural Moral Law however disagrees as it goes against Gods commandments that “thou shalt not murder”
Point three - Fletchers principles
Fletcher’s working principles of relativism and personalism, means euthanasia is not always morally wrong and seems morally ethical as personalism posits how the person should be put at the heart of the decision
Point three - disadvantages of Fletcher
Yet consequentialist ethical approach means that it is impossible to know the outcomes – ironically love could not be best served as the persons death could cause more harm than good for those still living
Pope Paul. Allowing euthanasia will encourage immoral people to put pressure on sick relatives to end their lives when this was not what they wanted, more absolute approach like NML needed which would prevent these immoral dilemmas
Point three - counter to disadvantages
In the Netherlands where Euthanasia has been permitted it’s been Widley regarded as a success
Point three - why Netherlands case does not matter
Yet takes away the intrinsic value of life and could resort to more people turning to suicide when placed in stressful situations at school/work
-Ironically once again SE may lead to a least-coming outcome as the person may do things that they later regret
-Natural Law goes against secondary precepts of defending the innocent
