Exam 2

What are the 2 forms of aid in dying?

Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide

A physician causing a patients death/killing a patient \n aka. mercy killing

Euthanasia

A physician provides the patient with the means in which a patient takes their own life

Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS)

An organization of medical practitioners who aim to promote the quality and development of the healthcare profession and give a voice to the medical community

American Medical Association (AMA)

Jack Kevorkian was known as

Dr. Death

The role of a medical practitioner is the role of a healer and protecting life from illness

Role of a healer principle

Life is sacred and should be preserved and protected, not taken

Sanctity of life principle

Principle that states to do no harm to others

Principle of non-maleficence

Causing death; killing (ex. lethal injection)

Active Euthanasia

Letting die; not killing (ex. turning off life support)

Passive Euthanasia

Who critiques the AMAs policy of active and passive euthanasia?

James Rachels

How does AMA view active and passive euthanasia

active- morally guilty \n passive- morally innocent

AMA approves of PE because it serves the goal of preventing the patients needless suffering, but AE better serves that goal because it provides a quicker, more painless, more humane method of facilitating death

James Rachels main argument

God is the only one who should take life

Doctors playing God criticism

Doing what is humane is ground that AID stands on. Not providing AID is abandoning compassion and fails to provide human treatment.

Compassion argument

Focused on free choice and autonomy. Preventing AID is to restrict or deny rights to self determination.

Rights and self determination argument

Jack Kevorkian's response to playing God

Playing God is unavoidable and a necessary part of medicine

What arguments does Callahan critique?

Objection to rights argument, objection of compassion argument, and says medicine is incompatible with AID

There is no satisfactory way to practice AID since it can not be practiced in a way that is both responsible and discriminatory. It must be practiced either selectively or unselectively. \n The role and purpose of medicine is incompatible with AID, and would force medicine to step outside its proper role.

Callahans main argument

Anti Aid in dying

AMA and Daniel Callahan

Pro Aid in dying

Jack Kevorkian and James Rachels

Standards for moral evaluation introduced by capital punishment

Justice and moral progress/advancement of civilization

Pro death penalty

Dennis Prager

Anti Death penalty

Jimmy Dore and Jeffery Reiman

Capital Punishment is morally unwarranted and should be maintained, because it deters people from committing murder

The deterrence argument

Capital punishment is morally warranted, because it serves justice. Justice is served when people get what they deserve. CP serves justice because it satisfies the eye for eye principle

Pragers justice argument

Punishment should match the crime in kind and degree. We should do to them what they did to victims

Eye for eye principle

Formal title for eye to eye principle \n means law of retaliation

Lex Taliones

Although CP is just a form of punishment (justice) abolishing CP would contribute to the advancement of civilization (moral progress) Because the death penalty is primitive, uncivilized and barbaric we should abolish it

Reiman’s main argument

Main difference between Dore and Reimans argument

Reiman's more explicit about using progress of civilization as main argument \n Reiman concedes that CP is just a form of punishment for murders, because murders deserve CP

The basis of the argument is to respect life. He says "if we are going to murder murderers, why don't we rape rapists?" This is to prove that we would rather kill someone than rape someone, even though killing is worse. His main point is we either value life, or we don't and we either use violence to solve our problems or we don't. His last main point is that killing is probably more merciful in a sense than keeping them in prison for life.

Dores main argument

Pragers argument appeals to our

emotional side

Dore and Reimans arguments appeal to our

intellectual side

T/F - James Rachels' discussion of euthanasia suggests that if passive euthanasia is considered morally permissible, then active euthanasia should be considered permissible as well.

True

T/F - If John Doe believes that it is never permissible for a physician to intentionally allow for a patient's death to occur by withholding medical treatment, then John Doe would agree with the AMA's policies about how a physician should or should not act

False

T/F - James Rachels' discussion of euthanasia lends support to Jack Kevorkian's view about euthanasia and assisted suicide

True

T/F - To criticize the AMA's policy on euthanasia, James Rachels argues that the bare difference between killing and letting die does not, in itself, make a moral difference. Therefore, if a doctor lets a patient die, for humane reasons, he is in the same moral position as if he had given the patient a lethal injection for humane reasons.

True

T/F - Although Jack Kevorkian's argument about rights is an argument that conflicts with the AMA's policy on euthanasia, this argument lends support to the AMA's policy on physician assisted suicide.

false

T/F - The lex talionis principle lends support to the idea that killing is sometimes morally justified, and the lex talionis principle lends support to the AMA's policy on assisted suicide.

false

T/F - Although Daniel Callahan and Jeffrey Reiman argue about different controversies that concern the practice of killing, they each offer arguments that support the idea that killing is a practice that we should not engage in

True

T/F - If Jane Doe firmly supports the role-as-healer principle, then Jane has reason to support the AMA's view, Daniel Callahan's view, and Jack Kevorkian's view on whether a physician should be permitted to engage in mercy killing or to assist in their patients' suicides.

False ( Wouldn't support Kevorkian)

T/F - Daniel Callahan suggests that it is not medicine's place to determine if or when the burden of life is too great to be endured.

True

T/F - Daniel Callahan argues that physician assisted suicide cannot be defended by relying on the idea that patients have a right to self-determination

True

T/F - Daniel Callahan argues that if we accept Kevorkian's arguments in favor of physician assisted suicide, then we would end up practicing aid-in-dying in a way that is either discriminatory and unfair, on one hand, or irresponsible and non-protective, on the other hand.

True

T/F - Daniel Callahan argues that if we legalized assisted suicide here in the U.S., this would have the harmful effect of lessening the value that Americans place upon life, which would likely result in an increased murder rate in the U.S.

False

T/F - If someone very strongly agreed with the sanctity of life principle, then they would have reason to support Jimmy Dore's view about the death penalty

True

T/F - Jeffrey Reiman agrees that murderers deserve the death penalty, and the death penalty is a just punishment for murderers.

True

T/F - The deterrence argument against the death penalty reflects or relies on the way of thinking that utilitarianism uses to morally judge actions

True

T/F - Jeffrey Reiman and Jimmy Dore's view concerning the death penalty supports the idea that we should use the lex talionis principle as our guide to decide how we should punish criminals.

false

T/F - James Rachels argues that aid-in-dying is incompatible with the aims and purpose of medicine.

False (Callahan argues this)

T/F - Jimmy Dore argues that we should abolish the death penalty because it's barbaric, and it's motivated by a willingness to end life and a vengefulness in our culture and society. Therefore, because he argues we should make our culture and society less barbaric, less willing to end life, and less vengeful, his argument is similar to a virtue-ethics style argument

True

T/F - The AMA's view about euthanasia supports the idea that physicians are the only people who can appropriately play the role of executing murderers, and so the death penalty must be carried out by trained medical professionals only

False

T/F - Dennis Prager argues that if we evaluate the death penalty by focusing on the role-as-healer principle and only the role-as-healer principle, then we will recognize that the death penalty is morally warranted and it should not be abolished.

false