Voluntary Euthanasia Ir Morally Acceptable Non Voluntary Euthanasia Is Always Wrong Flashcards
Introduction
- the question is multi faceted and has problems of definition
- voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia where person does and can consent, non voluntary euthanasia is where person cannot consent
- answer to question depends on defining values one has of human life I.e what makes life worth living
- I think non voluntary euthanasia is moral and like quality of life argument
1st paragraph
- sanctity of life principle
- many versions but basic proposition is life is sacred as given by god
- Vitalist argues life always sacred as is god given soul and no means justify termination of life
- Christian’s see life set apart from god as created imago dei implies we are different to other creatures
- humans posses a spark of divinity which set us apart illustrated in incarnation of Word of gods as man in Jesus reaffirming sanctity of human life in relationship with god
- life is a gift from god on loan to us as god is author of life so follows he is the one who determines when should end not up to individual to add or subtract from any life
- key concept that innocent life always protected as taking life broader than just killing prohibition is part of social fabric which discriminated against no one
- deuternonomy ‘choose life’
- life to be loved and love requires Christian to respect and protect all humans regardless of status gender etc. seen in the parable of Good Samaritan
- think Jesus life and death is sign of gods love for world and each person should sacrifice own life for others
- strong sanctity of life: euthanasia always wrong as seen in bible condemnation of suicide as it is blasphemy as rejection of gods gift of life also rejects redemption through victory over death in Christ resurrection
- King Saul and Judas who committed suicide both condemned by bible
- R.C.C reinforces this and in Evangeliu, Vitae says accepting euthanasia undermined sanctity of life by developing ‘culture of death’
- devalues dignity and respect of humans and marginalises their weak, I’ll and disabled
- weak sanctity of life: although human life always valuable maybe situation where more harm to continue it
- doesn’t see killing innocent person out of love equal to murder as murder implies revenge, cruelty where suicide or euthanasia out of love isn’t wrong
- underpinned by two principles first being no one has a duty to endure a life of extreme pain
- second being life is a gift not burden and if life given as gift we must use responsibly and dispose as we wish f wouldn’t be gift if gives still has ownership
- agree more with weak not fully convinced
Criticism of 1st paragraph
-so,e loves not worth as much as others ambulance driver focus on young rather than old as no sense in young life same as old
- people lose right to be treated sacred when they take life as fake upon themselves to kill someone and devoid the, of gods gift they should receive equal punishment
- I think sanctity of life not convincing and non voluntary still can be right
2nd paragraph
-quality of life principle
- human life to possess certain attributes to have value including experience happiness, autonomy, conscious
- instrumentalist view of life as only worthwhile if can fulfill things which make life worth living as nothing intrinsically good about being alive except as means of us experiencing those things
- Singer develops Locke’s notion that value of life depend on persons ability to have desires and preferences not on a soul which gives us automatic superiority over animals
- In Rethinking Life and Death sets out his 5 rational quality of life commandments: worth of human life varies, taken responsibility for your actions, respect one’s right to live/die, brith children only if wanted, don’t discriminate on basis of species
- Singer on Baby doe abortion case ‘if we compare a severely defective human infant with non human animal we will often find the non human to have superior capacities’
- problem of what primary principle permits one to take a life
- for many basic criterion is if persons happiness outweighs unhappiness as bad quality of life is one where pain outweighs happiness and this is view of utilitarians
- utilitarians still split this further: total happiness judgement: if a person is happy in life then the longer he or she loves the greater their quality of life but if they no longer have quality of life then sum of their happiness can’t be increases so can be ended
-Higher qualities judgement: person quality of life is judged by minimum standards which are needed for a happy life (memory, future etc.) I’d lack these and can’t develop them no quality of life and so can be ended
Criticism to 2nd paragraph
- one criticism is in depression patients often want to die as the Beck depression inventory includes sayings like ‘I’d rather die’
- this is obviously a symptom of depression so we can’t assume their requests are proxy for a life not worth living
- don’t find this convicing because I don’t think he principle encompasses symptoms where one thinks they should die as an effect of their illness
- objectively if they still have a quality of life using any of the judgments then they should live
- same applies to those who fluctuate between wanting death and not
- unconvinced and still support quality of life
3rd paragraph
- situationist which combine consequentialism and church weak sanctity of life principle into what fletcher hoped offered rational means of judging issues
-issues like sex, abortion euthanasia etc. - rejects strong sanctity of life position in that euthanasia isn’t intrinsically wrong and there’ll be occasions where euthanasia is wrong because isn’t the most loving action and other times when it will be the most compassionate
- fletcher group working principle applied to euthanasia as follows
- pragmatism: each case has to be judged according to its merits as there aren’t intrinsic laws which prohibit the use of euthanasia and in case of PVS passive euthanasia is justified as most compassionate action and best use of resources as there little quality of life
-Relativism: killing innocents cant be absolute wrong becasue each case judged relative to love and weak sanctity of life means life given to use wisely and this might mean sacrificing life or helping one die
-positivism: no law states life must be preserved at all costs and laws and rules invented by humans to asssit other humans and this could mean allowing one to die
-personalism: at hear of situationism is repsect for ones autonmoy and integrity and so acknowledging ones life might stop being instrumentally of value t them as humanity more significant than just biological existence
