Euthanasia- Ethical Issues

Info/Intro...
1. Until 1961, suicide was a criminal offence in the uk
2. The 1961 Act decriminalised suicide, but did not make it morally licit
3. Attitudes on euthanasia date back to the first doctors of Ancient Greece. Hippocrates lived around the same time as Plato, who indicated that death was favourable to incurable disease
  1. Hippocrates is quoted to have stated the opposite 'I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor will i suggest such councel.'
Situationism
1. Situationism would support the right to self determination if it was the most loving action
2. Situationists argue that the 'morality of an action depends on the situation' (Joseph Fletcher)
3. Joseph Fletchler believed that there is an 'absolute principle of love' that should be applied in each situation which would produce the best outcome
4. Rules and principles can be set aside if love seems better served
  1. Therefore moral principles on euthanasia can be set aside if euthanasia is the most loving action
5. Fletcher created four working principles to establish the right moral actions
  1. Pragmatism would suggest that if euthanasia was a practical action, it would be morally acceptable.
  2. Personalism would suggest that people are more important than rules, 'the man was not made for the Sabbath'.
  3. Fletcher's relativsm argues tha rules do not always apply, the depend on the situation. Absolutes like 'do not steal' become relative to love. 'It relativizes the absolute, it does not absolutize the relative.'
  4. His final principle, positivism, disagress with Kant and Natural Law because they are based on reason. When deciding whether euthanasia is the most moral action, you have to start with a positive choice: you have to want to do good.
6. It could be argued that Situationism is the best method when deciding whether euthanasia is morally acceptable because it considers the person and the situation specific to them.
Natural Law
1. In Natural Law the basic law states that we must 'do good and avoid evil'.
2. The basic law leads us on to primary and secondary precepts, the first one being 'preservation of life'
3. Due to the precepts, Natural Law would argue that euthanasia is not morally acceptable because it does not follow the basic laws
4. Natural Law has rules that are easy to follow- it is clear that euthanasia is morally unacceptable
Sanctity Of Life
1. Strong Sanctity of Life
  1. The basic proposition of SOL is that life is sacred and God given, therefore euthanasia is wrong because only God has the power to give and take life
  2. Strong SOL is often referred to as the 'pro-life proposition' and philosophically corresponds to vitalism
  3. Vitalists believe that human life is sacred because it possesses a 'God given soul'.
    1. Therefore, SOL would argue that there are 'no ordinary or extraordinary' means which justify euthanasia.
  4. Backed by Biblical evidence- Life is always to be loved and protected, Jesus' Parable of the Good Samaritan when prejudice is overcome. This type of biblical evidence shows that love is central to Christianity, a love which does not allow euthanasia
2. Weak Sanctity of Life
  1. This Christian argument does not consider that killing an innocent person out of love is morally equivalent to murder
  2. Suicide and particularly euthanasia is different to murder because there is so ulterior motive such as revenge or curelty
  3. The weak SOL argues that life is a gift not a burden. This gift is given so we may dispose of it as we wish
  4. God gave us free will and ownership of his gift meaning that as 'good stewards' of this life (Genesis 1:28) we can responsibly decide when to end it
  5. Many would argue that this is a good method of assessing euthanasia because it uses logical reasoning with evidence from the Bible.
    1. However fundamentalists, who interpret the Bible literally, would argue that this is not the best method for assessing whether euthanasia is morally acceptable because it does not follow the rules of the bible as they believe should be intepreted.
Quality Of Life
1. The QOL principle states that human life has to possess certain attributes in order to have value
  1. There is nothing intrinsically good about being alive.
2. The rejection of the sanctity of life principle
  1. Peter Singer replaces the traditional SOL with five quality of life commandments in 'Rethinking Life and Death'
  2. One of the commandments 'Respect a person's desire to live or die' would indicate that euthanasia is a personal decision which should be respected by society
3. CASE STUDY: Robert and his wife Jennifer Stokes. Their decision for euthanasia must be respected because they believed neither of them had a quality of life. The 'total happiness judgement' would argue that because Mr and Mrs Stokes had a poor quality of life and their happiness could not be increased, then their life was no longer worth loving.
4. Happiness as QOL could be seen as the best method when assessing whether euthanasia is morally acceptable because its from a Utilitarian view which focuses on happiness. This way, the decision on euthanasia can be based on personal happiness and QOL rather than Christianity or any other religion
5. Autonomy as the basis of QOL principle.
  1. This argument values 'self rule' or autonomy.
  2. John Stuart Mill developed this principle in his book 'On Liberty' (1859). Mill's form of liberalism suggests that taking ones life is a matter of personal autonomy
  3. For example, Mr and Mrs Stokes would be free to determine their future with inference only necessary if doing so caused harm to others.
  4. Mill had a very liberal view, providing maximum freedom.
  5. Although this liberal look on euthanasia provides personal freedom, it could in some circumstances set what is called a 'precedent' for the future and the law could have less control on society
Voluntary Euthanasia
1. Difficulty on deciding whether there is a moral difference between medical intervention to saves a person's life or medical non intervention to end a person's life
2. Some ethical theories argue that allowing to die is not the same as killing.
3. Situationalists would use the 'absolute principle of love' to decide what is morally acceptable in this situation.
4. In this case, the situationalist 'consequantialism argument would suggest that failing to give a patient drugs and allowing them to die, is morally equivalent to giving a patient drugs which quiken death if both outcomes result in the death of a patient
5. However, it could be argued that the 'nature of intention' is what decides whether it is morally acceptable
Deontology
1. For deontologists, it is whether an act was intended or unintended as to determining whether a person is blameworthy or not.
2. Deontologists and Consequetialists dispute the doctrine of double effect.
  1. The doctrine of double effect allows a person to perform an act whether it will produce and evil if it meets the criteria
  2. The action itself must be good from the outset and that the 'good effect' and 'not evil' is not intended
    1. It also states that the 'good effect' must not be produced by means of an 'evil affect'
3. There also must be a 'proportionately good reason' to allow the evil act.
4. CASE STUDY: The case study of Dr David Moor in which Moor used a drug to relieve a patients pain which ultimately 'hastened his death'. However, Dr Moor argued that this was not the same as killing his patient because of the doctrine of double effect. Moor argued that his intention was to relieve pain for the patient George Lidell, which means that the action in itself was good from the outset. In contrast, the doctrine of double effect does not mean that deontologists such as Dr Moor support euthanasia. It could be argued that this is the best way of assessing euthanasia because it is the intention which is specific to each case which is important. This means that you do not have to support euthanasia, you could just be following your correct job procedure

Siguiente

Euthanasia- Ethical Issues

Descripción

Resumen del Recurso

Similar

	Creado por daisy jones hace más de 7 años