Euthanasia vs SE Flashcards
INTRO - define
What is Euthanasia? Assisted suicide / What is agape – Principle of agape (love) NT ethical approach advocated by Fletcher in which all other ethical norms ‘thou shalt not kill’ put aside if love is best served doing otherwise
INTRO - define both sides of the debate
Three times in recent years Parliament has debated and rejected a change in the 1960 law against assisted suicide – upholding how life is valuable / We are autonomous beings and just as stated in Article 1 all humans have the right to life all humans should also have the right to die if they choose to do so
INTRO - position
Although understands that some cases such as Locked in Syndrome may be a just cause for Euthanasia as person can physically not move/ won’t get better however in most cases Euthanasia should not be permitted as could paradoxically transcend into a society in which agape (love) is being mis-used
Section one: AO1
QUALITY OF LIFE
Fletcher’s working principles of relativism and personalism, means euthanasia is not always morally wrong. It advocates the approach that only love is intrinsically good and when the patient requests Euthanasia sometimes the most loving outcome would be to support their request.
Section one: AO2 FOR
QUALITY OF LIFE
Campbell with muscular dystrophy stated that those who oppose Euthanasia is because of a hatred founded in “fear and prejudice”
-By putting the individual first it would perhaps advocate a society, in which everyone’s needs are met (more morally right/ Kingdom of Ends)
Not everyone (within the Western world especially) has such an abject belief in God and thus should not be required to uphold the Sanctity of life and have the autonomous right to their own lives
-Although SE is founded on Christianity the principle of agape and putting love first can be universalised to the atheist. Whereas Sanctity of life cannot
Section one: AO2 AGAINST
QUALITY OF LIFE
Brown states that 1:8 cases of elder abuse currently involves financial abuse by relatives
-Sanctity of life stops the older generation being pushed into Euthanasia by younger relatives
Glover– if they are making the decision in a diminished mental state then they cannot be truly autonomous
Better if someone not suffering from disease makes the decision as not clouded by emotion but fully rational. Some people with depression find that in hindsight they are grateful that they did not die.
-Paradoxically love could not be best served by always placing the individual first as consequential approach means that it is impossible to know what the most loving outcome would be
Section one: AO2 CONCLUSION
QUALITY OF LIFE
Euthanasia legalised could lead to elder abuse and people dying when emotions are clouded. Clear guidelines helps prevents this from happening and creating a potentially immoral world where people are Euthanized involuntary. By placing the individual first it is impossible to know what the most loving outcome would be and people could have clouded judgement
Section two: AO1
SLIPPERY SLOPE
If Euthanasia was allowed for one case, then voluntary Euthanasia could transcend into involuntary Euthanasia where people are Euthanised against their will. Sanctity of life should continue to be upheld to prevent this rather than looking at what the most loving thing would be.
Section two: AO2 FOR
SLIPPERY SLOPE
Nazi Germany people who were sick and disabled under the age of three were euthanized as it was argued by medical experts that there quality of life was compromised. This soon expanded to older disabled children/ adults and gas chambers.
-Cleary shows how as soon as the Sanctity of life was no longer upheld how society became unordered and immoral. Further supported by the normality of it being accepted within society although at first Doctors fought against it as they knew it was immoral
Brandt medical professional who designed it all thought that what he was doing was moral and the right thing and not harming others (thought he was placing the individual and the principle of agape first)
How can you measure when your acts are doing more harm than good if you fully believe you are being moral. Mill’s argument falls through as hard to put into practise with an issue as complex as Euthanasia
Section two: AO2 AGAINST
SLIPPERY SLOPE
Mill proposes “one very simple principle” that we can do whatever we want if it does not harm others
Seems fair shouldn’t force people to live if they don’t want to anymore especially as Western society is becoming more atheist and thus won’t believe in principles such as the Sanctity of life (fletcher)
Section two: CONCLUSION
SLIPPERY SLOPE
Problem of Euthanasia can be historically analysed. Although regarded as an extreme case and individuals can clearly differentiate between voluntary/ involuntary Euthanasia now however what if history repats itself. Involuntary becomes the ‘norm’ and becomes so entrenched within society for people to stop it. Already seen before what’s to stop it happening again, Principle of agape too ambiguous and need clear guidelines.
Section two: AO1
PASSIVE VS ACTIVE
Some people argue that although active Euthanasia is wrong (lethal injection) as it could lead to the Slippery slope, Euthanasia could be applied passively (switching off life support) as pointless to help someone who fully knows that they cannot overcome disease, also Fletcher would argue that this is the most practical
Section two: AO2 FOR
PASSIVE VS ACTIVE
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
-Feels immoral to keep someone in this condition
-Tony Nicklinson, argued that his life with “locked-in syndrome” was a living hell
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.
Section two: AO2 AGAINST
PASSIVE VS ACTIVE
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. As passively watching someone die without doing anything is as bad as carrying out the act yourself
Extreme cases calls for extreme circumstances
-Case needs to be looked at by a range of medical professionals and go through the law courts to see what would be most moral to do in extreme cases such as Locked in syndrome where individual cannot move and QofLife is severely limited (fletcher)
Section two: AO2 CONCLUSION
PASSIVE VS ACTIVE
Understands that in some cases such as Locked in Syndrome when the patient is in a state of extreme suffering then Euthanasia is permitted. Also understands however that suffering and pain is difficult to measure so in these extreme cases should have to go through a range of medical professionals and law courts to see whether Euthanasia is permissible and make sure that most loving outcome would indeed be Euthanasia. Life of sanctity is still relevant but extreme cases calls for extreme circumstances
