Until 1961, suicide
was a criminal
offence in the uk
The 1961 Act decriminalised suicide, but did
not make it morally licit
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
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
Situationism would
support the right to
self determination if
it was the most
loving action
Situationists
argue that the
'morality of an
action depends on
the situation'
(Joseph Fletcher)
Joseph Fletchler believed that
there is an 'absolute principle
of love' that should be applied
in each situation which would
produce the best outcome
Rules and
principles
can be set
aside if love
seems
better
served
Therefore moral
principles on euthanasia
can be set aside if
euthanasia is the most
loving action
Fletcher created four
working principles to
establish the right moral
actions
Pragmatism would
suggest that if
euthanasia was a
practical action, it
would be morally
acceptable.
Personalism would suggest that
people are more important than
rules, 'the man was not made for
the Sabbath'.
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.'
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.
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
In Natural Law
the basic law
states that we
must 'do good
and avoid evil'.
The basic law
leads us on to
primary and
secondary
precepts, the
first one being
'preservation of
life'
Due to the precepts,
Natural Law would
argue that euthanasia
is not morally
acceptable because it
does not follow the
basic laws
Natural Law has rules that
are easy to follow- it is clear
that euthanasia is morally
unacceptable
Sanctity Of Life
Strong Sanctity of Life
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
Strong SOL is often
referred to as the 'pro-life
proposition' and
philosophically corresponds
to vitalism
Vitalists believe that
human life is sacred
because it possesses a
'God given soul'.
Therefore, SOL would argue that there are 'no
ordinary or extraordinary' means which justify
euthanasia.
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
Weak Sanctity of Life
This Christian argument does not consider that
killing an innocent person out of love is morally
equivalent to murder
Suicide and particularly euthanasia is different to
murder because there is so ulterior motive such as
revenge or curelty
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
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
Many would argue that this is a
good method of assessing
euthanasia because it uses logical
reasoning with evidence from the
Bible.
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
The QOL principle states
that human life has to
possess certain attributes
in order to have value
There is nothing intrinsically
good about being alive.
The rejection of the sanctity of life principle
Peter Singer replaces the
traditional SOL with five
quality of life
commandments in
'Rethinking Life and Death'
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
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.
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
Autonomy as the basis of QOL principle.
This argument values 'self
rule' or autonomy.
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
For example, Mr and Mrs
Stokes would be free to
determine their future
with inference only
necessary if doing so
caused harm to others.
Mill had a very liberal
view, providing maximum
freedom.
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
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
Some ethical
theories argue
that allowing
to die is not
the same as
killing.
Situationalists would use
the 'absolute principle of
love' to decide what is
morally acceptable in this
situation.
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
However, it could be argued
that the 'nature of intention'
is what decides whether it is
morally acceptable
Deontology
For deontologists, it is whether an
act was intended or unintended as to
determining whether a person is
blameworthy or not.
Deontologists and
Consequetialists dispute the
doctrine of double effect.
The doctrine of double effect allows a
person to perform an act whether it
will produce and evil if it meets the
criteria
The action itself must be good from the outset and that
the 'good effect' and 'not evil' is not intended
It also states that the 'good effect' must not be produced by means of an 'evil affect'
There also must be a 'proportionately good reason'
to allow the evil act.
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