Phil exam 4 Flashcards
Active euthanasia:
Agent (oneself or another) provides
effective treatment to cause and
hasten death
Passive euthanasia:
Agent refuses / withdraws / withholds
life-sustaining treatment and allows
patient to die by “letting nature take its
course
modes of euthanasia (vin mode)
- Voluntary euthanasia
- Nonvoluntary euthanasia
- Involuntary euthanasia
varieties of euthanasia (variety of vans can be active or passive)
- Voluntary passive euthanasia
- Nonvoluntary passive euthanasia
- Voluntary active euthanasia
- Nonvoluntary active euthanasia
currently legal euthanasia
“voluntary passive euthanasia” is accepted as morally / ethically legitimate in the U.S, as is “nonvoluntary passive euthanasia,” within the confines of substituted judgment and/or decisions made in best interests of paCent.
reasons to support active euthanasia (Ha)
Humanitarian grounds: AE may be the most
merciful and humane approach to relieving
paCent suffering, vs. letting-die.
Appeal to patient autonomy: Honoring a
competent patient’s request for AE, in view
of patient’s suffering, is a perfect expression
of respect for the other’s autonomy
case against AE
- AE is murder of an innocent person and
inherently wrong. - AE lies well outside the scope of a physician’s
professional role, purposes, and responsibilities. - Social policy allowing voluntary AE would
have disastrous side consequences (devaluation
of human life; social reluctance to provide lifesustaining treatment, pressure to accept AE;
slippery slope to nonvoluntary or involuntary
AE)
James Rachels: He proposes that…(Rachel is good this time)
active euthanasia should be accepted as morally
legitimate:
– Because: There is no morally significant
distinction between active and passive
euthanasia;
– That is, actively killing and allowing-to-die
achieve same result: one intends a
hastened death in either case
james rachels con’t (Rachels motives were good, and AE is better than PE)
And because: the moral value of the act lies
not in its outcome but in its motive (selfish
gains vs. humanitarian interests);
– Thus, if passive euthanasia is morally
acceptable, then we should also accept
active euthanasia when properly motivated;
– In fact, in many cases, AE might be more
humane and effective than PE—quick and
painless end, vs. protracted and difficult
allowing-to-die;
– And AE pays more complete respect to
patient autonomy
Daniel Callahan (Daniel the D)
Argues against the moral legitimacy of active euthanasia:
– The distinction between active killing and
passive letting-die is morally significant,
contra Rachels
Daniel Callahan - Metaphysical reason (self is not master in metaphysical)
To ignore the
distinction between killing and letting die
wrongly assumes that the Self is responsible
for all things, and “has become master of
everything within and outside of the self”
Daniel Callahan - moral reason (D says you’re responsible)
Rachels views PE as being
equivalent to AE, in terms of our moral
culpability for causing a death by passive
means. Yet, this view neglects the
difference between what causes death and
who’s at fault for it. Physical causality is
one thing; moral culpability is another.
Thus, just because we allow someone to die
(from natural causes) it doesn’t mean we’re
morally culpable, as we would be in a case
of actively killing that person.
daniel callahan - medical reason (medical is doctor)
Physicians should not be placed in a position to kill paCents by active means; this is a misuse of their expertise and abilities: “only to cure or comfort, never to kill.
physician assisted suicide
AKA “Aid in dying”: Intentional termination
of one’s life by active means, with the
assistance of a physician who provides
information, means of death, or both.
• Versus active euthanasia: In AE, physician
would perform the acCon that causes death
(e.g., administer an injection of life-ending
med’s); in PAS, the patient performs that
acCon, using means and/or information
provided by physician.
key points - euthanasia (strongest argument FOR euthanasia is…)
• Passive euthanasia (both voluntary and
nonvoluntary) is legal.
• The strongest argument for active voluntary
euthanasia is derived from the principle of
autonomy.
• Those who oppose euthanasia often draw a
sharp distinction between killing and letting
die
Brock - 2 ethical values
same two
fundamental ethical values supporting the
consensus on patient’s rights to decide
about life-sustaining treatment also support
the ethical permissibility of euthanasia.
Brock - self-determination
It is a person’s interest in making
important decisions about their own lives
for themselves in accordance to one’s own
values and/or conceptions of the good life.
It also has to do with being left free to act
on one’s own decisions
self determination entails…(Brock)
taking responsibility for one’s own life and for the type of person they will become. It also includes a high view of human dignity as it pertains to a person’s capacity to direct their own lives.
Brock - pluralism (no one answer)
For many patients near death, maintaining
the quality of one’s life, avoiding great
suffering, maintaining one’s dignity, and
insuring that others remember us as we wish
them…But there is no…objectively correct
answer for everyone as to when…one’s life
becomes all things considered a burden and
unwanted.
Brock - a fundamental value (fundamental in SD)
Brock thinks that if self determination is a fundamental value, then it is especially important that individuals control the manner, circumstances, and timing of their own death.
Brock - individual wellbeing (wellbeing is a burden)
Life itself is commonly taken to be a central good. But when life is no longer considered a benefit by the patient, but now has become a burden. The same judgment underlies a request from euthanasia: continued life is seen by the patient as no longer a benefit, but now a burden.
arguments against Brock (ethics and legality)
1) In any individual case where considerations of the patient’s SD and well-being do support euthanasia, it is nevertheless always ethically wrong. 2) In some individual cases euthanasia may not be ethically wrong, but, nonetheless, public and legal policy should never permit it
response to argument that euthanasia is always killing (waiving that right)
The right not to be killed, like other rights, should be waivable when the person makes a competent decision that continued life is no longer wanted or a good, but instead worse than no further life at all. In this view, euthanasia is properly understood as a case of a person having waived his or her right not to be killed
response to argument that euthanasia should never be legalized
1. If euthanasia were permitted it would be possible to respect SD. 2. Polls show that many people would support the legalization of euthanasia to have more control. 3.If euthanasia were permitted, then those with untreatable severe pain could benefit. 4. If euthanasia were permitted and death accepted, then it is more humane to end life quickly and peacefully, when that is what the patient wants.
argument against the legalization of euthanasia - Brock
1. It is incompatible with a doctor’s commitment as healers to protect patients. 2. It would weaken society’s commitment to provide optimal care for dying patients. 3. It could threaten the rights of patients or their surrogates to decide about and to refuse LST. 4. A few others but the more serious one is the “Slipper Slope” objection.
