Euthansia Flashcards
What does the strong sanctity of life principle suggest
human life is innately valuable +since it was created by God, only God has the authority to take it away
Things to back up the strong sanctity life principle with
- reveals he has ‘plans’ for every human (Jeremiah 29:11)
- ‘hairs of [our] heads are all numbered’ (Luke 11:7).
-> 1.(both) shows immense detail and precision with which God formed humans 2. human life has intrinsic quality which cannot be taken away - belief in sanctity of life of necessary to maintain social order
-> Aquinas’ natural law-God gave humans the potential to live in harmony by following his natural law.
Allowing euthanasia- directly against the precept of preserving innocent life +living in an ordered society
humans living contrary to God’s design would lead to immorality.
gen 2:7 uses hebrew word ‘yasar’ to describe the way God formed humans. Here, God is likened to a potter carefully molding clay to show how, unlike the rest of creation, humans were personally shaped by God and so have value and purpose. Therefore, regardless of their situation, humans should not be offered euthansia due to the suffering they experience.
God distinguishes humans from the rest of creation by giving them the ‘breath of life’- a soul. It is through this soul that humans are able to achieve a spiritual connection with God and uniquely reflect him since it is the part of humans that mirror’s God’s divine nature. Therefore, humans have the potential to receive eternal rest from God so by using euthansia as a moral solution to alleviate their suffering they disregard God’s divine plan.
weak sanctity of life argument
quality of life is an acceptable basis that can justify euthanasia in certain situations
- liberal Christians, the protection of human life should not be an absolutist rule which is necessary to follow, as they do not see the Bible as the perfect word of God.
->rules like ‘thou shall not murder’ (Exodus 20:13) can be broken depending on the circumstance. e.g. i patient in a vegetative state may be the most compassionate option to allow euthanasia to ease their suffering. This mimics the behaviour of Jesus who upheld compassion, often relieving the suffering of others e.g. (the bleeding woman in Luke).
- argument that ending human life disrupts the order of society is invalid as there are many countries which act on the basis of quality of life and still run in an orderly manner such as countries in Northern Ireland which remain stable in the world despite acting off the quality of life
NML
Catholics would recommend palliative care as an alternative to Euthanasia as it focuses on easing the suffering of the individual whilst also providing emotional and spiritual support.
Using Aquinas’ doctrine of the double effect, Catholics would allow a patient to receive medicine knowing that it would shorten their life but provide pain relief as the bad effect (death) is not the means by which the good effect is achieved. Instead, the intention would be to provide relief from suffering, therefore improving their quality of life which has equivalent importance to the unintended consequence- death
-> aligns with his synderesis principle ‘do good and avoid evil’ (Summa theologica)- as it follows the natural inclination to reduce suffering, allowing the individual to avoid pain
Archbishop Fisher
legalisation of euthanasia targets vulnerable people.
- culture that values success, self-sufficiency, productivity and beauty, those who don’t feel they possess these qualities may be tempted to die to avoid feeling like a burden. -> allowing euthanasia encourages people to end their life due to their feelings of inadequacy. - reinforced through the controversy over two high profile cases in Canada in 2022 where people with medical conditions for which they received insufficient financial support applied for euthanasia that one person (Denise) further explained the decision was made was ‘because of abject poverty’.
- makes maintaining strict boundaries challenging as it becomes difficult to avoid extending it to cases where people have short-sighted reasons. no reasonable way to restrict the principle of ‘freedom to die’ to the situations where it is the most applicable, potentially allowing euthanasia to become a means for escape for people with temporary hardships, rather than cases of genuine, unbearable suffering. instead of allowing euthanasia, we should aattempt to change our society by creating more accessible resources to those who need it to help them understand the quality of their life.
Peter Singer
not all humans are persons as his criteria for personhood are rationality and self-consciousness.
distinguishes between ‘humans’ (members of our species) and ‘persons’ (rational self-conscious beings), recommending euthanasia to those who he doesn’t classify as persons.
should therefore, according to his first new commandment, recognise the worth of human life varies and should not unnecessarily preserve unvaluable life.
In response to Archbishops Fisher’s argument, Singer points out that people who receive euthanasia in Oregon are disproportionately white, educated and not particularly elderly, so euthanasia does not especially target vulnerable people.
criticises the hypocrisy of the Catholic church who have previously permitted passive euthanasia (withdrawal of medical treatment keeping the patient alive) for patients who are in a coma or vegetative state, claiming they have no obligation to provide ‘burdensome or disproportionate treatment’ (Catechism) when truly they also believe life must have some ‘positive quality’ (Rethinking Life and Death) to be seen as valuable
Barclay
In Ethics in a Permissive Society, -> recognises the limitations of human judgement argues people are not perfectly loving as their loving nature can easily be corrupted by power. Giving certain individuals the power to decide the validity of euthanasia in certain circumstances is dangerous as humans are inherently selfish. Due to the corrupt nature of humans, their decisions are more likely to be influenced by their personal benefit than genuine compassion for the individual.
e.g., Aktion T4, a campaign of mass murder by involuntary euthanasia in Nazi Germany, was motivated by self-interest (e.g. economic benefits and personal bias) and therefore caused the Nazis to make incorrect judgements on the quality of life of certain individuals who they in reality had personal prejudices against.
Fletcher
allows euthansia if it is the most loving option
According to Fletcher’s 5th fundamental principle, ‘love justifies its means’. Therefore, if the life ending procedure will produce the most loving outcome situation ethics permits it. e.g. personal with terminal illness situation ethics would allow them to undergo euthanasia to relieve their suffering
This is supported by Fletcher’s presupposition of personalism which suggests we should put people before rules. Even tho the Ten Commandments state ‘thou shall not murder’, if it is beneficial to end the life to the person involved, Christians should condone it
in his ‘new ethics’ emphasises the quality of life, argues to be human is to be self-aware, consciously relate to other and capable to rationality.
-> means there is a need to make ‘a medical distinction between idiots, cretins and morons’ (Situation Ethics: The New Morality). He uses down syndrome as an example, explaining that it is more reasonable to feel ‘real guilt’ for keeping someone with down syndrome alive and instead save money for an ‘living learning child’. Instead, he recommends involuntary euthanasia (bringing someone’s life to an end without the explicit consent of the individual) since to him ‘it is harder morally to justify letting somebody die a slow and ugly death, dehumanised, than it is to justify helping him to escape from such misery’. Here, Fletcher suggests that using our judgement of the quality of life as a basis to allow euthanasia is the most loving option as it distributes maximum love to the patient, the family and community.
-> supported by his fundamental principle of pragmatism as using our rationality to remove purposeless life can help save resources for those who can truly utilise them which is more likely to would benefit society as a whole rather than a select few.
suffering
suffering has spiritual significance
-> Romans 5:3-4 tells Christians ‘suffering produces perseverance’, suggesting suffering is a necessary part of spiritual growth which allows Christians to test their faith and build virtues.
God often uses suffering to test the faith of believers in the Bible such as Job who lost his children, livestock, servants and health but remained faithful to God by continuing to live and worship God even though his wife told him to ‘curse God and die’. However, God rewarded Job’s faith by blessing his latter days more
than his beginning, showing that even in extreme suffering, believers should trust that God has a purpose rather than seeking ways to end suffering early.
