Voluntary and non voluntary euthanasia Flashcards
1
Q
Voluntary Euthanasia - KU
A
- Voluntary euthanasia is when someone wants to end their life and asks for this to happen
- An example of this is when a dying patient refuses medical treatment, asks for life-sustaining treatment to be withheld or withdrawn, makes a choice to die by some specific means (refusing to eat) or asks for help to end their life
2
Q
Non-voluntary Euthanasia - KU
A
- Non Voluntary Euthanasia is when someone is unable to make a decision about their condition and someone else makes that decision for them
- A distinction must be made between active and passive non voluntary euthanasia
- Active non voluntary euthanasia is when someone has either acted towards or deliberately done something to end a patients life, such as administrating a lethal substance to a patient; this type of euthanasia is generally scene as illegal throughout the world, with the exception of the Groningen Protocol
3
Q
Passive Non-voluntary Euthanasia - KU
A
- Passive non-voluntary euthanasia is whenever a doctor or other medical professionals either choose not to do something that would keep the patient alive or withdraw treatment that is keeping the patient alive
- The cases when passive non-voluntary euthanasia could take place include;
- if the person is in a coma with no chance of recovery
- if the person is in a permeant vegetative state (PVS)
- if the person is terminally ill, in unbearable pain and suffering and cannot communicate with others
-This passive approach to euthanasia where treatment is not given to the patient or is withdrawn is known as a Non-Treatment Decision (NTD) - Medical Professionals will consult with the patients family before agreeing on an NTD
4
Q
The doctrine of double effect
A
- the doctrine of double effect is an ethical principle that states when doing something good, there might be a morally bad side effect
- However, provided the bad side effect wasn’t intended, the initial good act can still be seen as morally good
- The doctrine of double effect is used at times with regard to the of euthanasia to justify a patients death
- it may be that a doctor has to administer a lethal dose of pain relief to relieve a patients pain and suffering; however the side effect could be that the patients life is shortened or ended
5
Q
Moral Issues arising from non-voluntary and voluntary euthanasia - Autonomy
A
- For many the key point about the right to die is that it is a personal choice.
- The patient has the autonomy to ensure that any decision is voluntary
- However when it comes to non-voluntary euthanasia all autonomy is removed as the patient is unable to give consent
- Therefore it may very well be the case that choices that are made by family members or medical professionals on behalf of the patient are different from the choices that the patient would make themselves
6
Q
Moral Issues arising from non-voluntary and voluntary euthanasia - Duty to Care
A
- In the UK doctors have a duty to care for their patients and are also, as the General Medical Council states, ‘personally account;e for your professional practise and must always be prepared to justify your decisions and actions’.
- Some doctors may feel that their duty to care means that they should do whatever is within their power to end any intolerable pain or suffering a patient is going through; in this scenario non voluntary euthanasia could be seen as an act of compassion
- If non-voluntary euthanasia was made legal then it would protect doctors, with the result that carrying out such an act of compassion would not see a doctor being prosecuted
- Other doctors may believe that it is their responsibility to attempt to sustain life at all costs and any type of euthanasia should never be an option.
- The BMA surveyed thousands of medical professionals and the overwhelming response was that doctors would not be willing to administer drugs with the intention of ending a patient’s life, even if the law changed to make it legal
7
Q
Moral Issues arising from non-voluntary and voluntary euthanasia - Virtue
A
- If something is of virtue it shows high moral standards
- some would argue that to choose to take the life of another person is not a morally good choice
- ending someones life does not exemplify high moral standards and is made even worse when it is something that they have not consented to
- Others, however, believe that putting an end to a situation where someone is in unbearable pain and suffering and can’t make a decision for themselves is, morally, a good thing to do
8
Q
Religious response to non-voluntary and voluntary euthanasia - Christianity
A
- The Catholic Churches response to voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia is that it is wrong
- The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. the body responsible for protecting catholic doctrine based at the Vatican in Rome, recently released a letter stating that ‘euthanasia is a crime against human life’
- The Catholic Church does however, believe that rejecting aggressive or disproportionate medical treatments that have little hope of positive results is allowed
- The believe this is not the same as euthanasia it is simply accepting the human condition as it faces death
9
Q
Religious response to non-voluntary and voluntary euthanasia - Sikhism
A
- Sikh teaching also share some similarities with Christianity with regards to opposing euthanasia as Sikhism teaches that all life is sacred and created by God
10
Q
Religious response to non-voluntary and voluntary euthanasia - Buddhists
A
- Buddhists are generally against all forms of euthanasia due to the teachings of the five precepts; this Buddhist guide to ethical issues states as its first precept that ‘I undertake to abstain from taking life’.
- Some Buddhists argue that voluntary euthanasia could be seen as a compassionate act and is in line with the teaching of the Noble Eightfold Path
- Others believe that any type of active or non-voluntary euthanasia might bring about negative karma for the patient and for everyone assisting their death
11
Q
Religious response to non-voluntary and voluntary euthanasia - Church of Scotland
A
- the Church of Scotland oppose euthanasia arguing that dying is a natural process and this who become vulnerable through illness or disability deserve special care and protection and proper end of life care does this much better than euthanasia
12
Q
Non-Religious response to non-voluntary and voluntary euthanasia - BMA
A
- The BMA’s stance is that voluntary and non voluntary euthanasia as well as physician-assisted suiciude should not be legalised in the UK
- The BMAs policy is debated and vote don nationally by elected members from the medical profession across the UK
- They believe the further development of high-quality palliative care is what allows patients at the end of their lives to die with dignity not any form of euthanasia
13
Q
Non-Religious response to non-voluntary and voluntary euthanasia - Humanists
A
- Humanists are in support of legalising assisted dying and voluntary euthanasia across the UK; however the organisation does not offer much of a response towards non-voluntary euthanasia
- The Humanist Society Scotland however is very clear in its views that personal choice is central to any issue at the end of life and personal choice is something that is not offered under non voluntary euthanasia
14
Q
Non-Religious response to non-voluntary and voluntary euthanasia - Utilitarian
A
- Utilitarian views on voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia are varied: some believe that legalising both would bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people, whilst others oppose this
- The well-known Utilitarian Peter Singer argues in favour of voluntary euthanasia and in some cases non voluntary euthanasia
- Singer argues his point based on the quality of life of the patient and whether those at the end of their lives can still be considered persons due to a lack of self-awareness and not being capable of reasoning
15
Q
Non-Religious response to non-voluntary and voluntary euthanasia - Dignity in dying
A
- Dignity in Dying is very clear as to what it is campaigning for and what laws it wants to see changed; assisted dying legalised for terminally ill, mentally competent adults
- They do not support non voluntary euthanasia
