Natural law (SE) best approach to the issue of euthanasia’. Discuss.

Question 1

qualities of NL- intro

Answer 1

absolutist, deontological
focuses on telos purpose

Question 2

paragraph 1 argument from NL- ML/ID

Answer 2

-absolute moral access through reason
-if god designed us naturally then bah naturally- no euthanasia in any circumstance
-everything created for purpose- reflect god image ‘imago dei’

Question 3

P1- critique of NL- singer

Answer 3

-claiming person sacred may be prolonging suffering
-PS (utilitarian) better to concern ourselves w decision that cause more pleasure and less suffering
-killing not wrong if that’s what they want

Question 4

paragraph 1- strength NL

Answer 4

-even if suffering or close to death still alive and have potential to reflect God’s image

Question 5

P1- response to singer’s criticism: w s of life

Answer 5

-WS of life- while not acceptable to kill, allow s/o to die rather than prolong suffering
-passive acceptable

Question 6

P1- CA to w s of life response

Answer 6

even when applying ws of life implies no autnomomy- life belongs to god and must fulfil purpose for which designed

Question 7

paragraph 2- NL + PP

Answer 7

-observe humans and see PP intrinsic to HN- (preserve life, live harmoniously)
-god-given ability to reason- use ratio discover euthanasia wrong and devise this as SP
-VE permitted elderly/ severely handicapped pressure to volunteer
-break ‘HL’ bc pressure concern

Question 8

P2 -another critique from SE

Answer 8

-maybe better as people above laws (personalism). E done out of love not immoral. Dianne Pretty MND end life w husbands help. DP said her q of life low, terminal illness and great pain. rule above law suffering exacerbated.
-NL unemotional and impersonal so little help in E cases which focus on person and their suffering

Question 9

P2- critique of PP

Answer 9

-debatable what constitutes as life- consciousness the PVS not considered ‘alive’. heartbeat then those on life support not ‘alive’

Question 10

P3- critique of DofDE

Answer 10

-collapsing into form of utilitarianism
-absolutist fold into relativist depending on how format unintended/intended outcomes
-one of prima facie strengths is simple w clear answers but DofDE contradicts as relies to be clear ab intention.
-could be abused serial killer dubbed ‘angels of mercy’/caregivers as end s/o life bc believe it to end suffering
-inconsistent results so difficult to apply
-intentions can be manipulated
-E incorrect decision matter of life/death so not useful

Question 10

paragraph 3- DofDE

Answer 10

Ca Ch- DofDE (permissible to use harm as - side effect okay if intent to good)
-inconsistent results so NL not best approach
-DP wouldn’t have been acceptable to end life using PP ‘preserve innocent life’ but painkillers to ease suffering (intended outcome) w unintended outcome of ending life permitted
-PE, LS stopped to w intent end life DofDE not applicable and morally wrong