Phl exam #2: Euthanasia

Euthanasia

derived from the Greek eu (good) and thanatos (death), refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering.

Different forms of euthanasia

Active, Passive, Voluntary, Nonvoluntary, Involuntary

Active Euthanasia

Direct actions, such as a lethal injection, that cause death.

Passive Euthanasia

Withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment.

Voluntary Euthanasia

When a competent person requests to end their life.

Nonvoluntary Euthanasia

When the patient is unable to consent (e.g., in a coma or an infant with severe disabilities).

Involuntary Euthanasia

When euthanasia is performed without the person’s consent.

Any moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia?

• View 1: Passive euthanasia is acceptable, while active euthanasia is not acceptable. (Letting die v.s. Killing)

• View 2: No moral distinction between these two.

• View 3: Active euthanasia is even morally better. (Active euthanasia is morally better because it can be quicker, cleaner, and less painful.

Pro-Euthanasia Arguments: Euthanasia happens - better to make it legal and regulate it properly. (A Utilitarianism Approach)

"we can't control drugs so we'd better legalize them", or "if we don't make abortion legal so that people can have it done in hospital, people will die from backstreet abortions".

Used a lot in discussion, and particularly in politics or round the table in the pub or the canteen.

Pro-Euthanasia Objection: Euthanasia happens - better to make it legal and regulate it properly. (A Utilitarianism Approach)

1. "murder happens - better to make it legal and regulate it properly".

2. What lies behind it is Utilitarianism. People may not accept this principle and certain things are wrong regardless of what effect they have on total human happiness.

3. Euthanasia can't be properly regulated.

Pro-Euthanasia Arguments: Increases Overall Well-Being Utilitarian Justification (Maximizing Happiness)

reducing suffering increases overall well-being.

Allowing euthanasia provides a dignified option for patients while preventing unnecessary pain for both the individual and their loved ones.

Pro-Euthanasia Objection: Increases Overall Well-Being Utilitarian Justification (Maximizing Happiness)

1. Utilitarianism deals with total human happiness. Euthanasia may make the patient happier, but the negative effects on those around the patient would outweigh it.

2. It seems impossible to extricate the happiness or unhappiness resulting from legal assisted suicide.

The only way to approach this would be to look at countries where euthanasia is legal. However, as no two countries are alike, it seems impossible to argue that the net effect on the whole of society will be a increase in happiness due to legal euthanasia.

Pro-Euthanasia Argument: Medical Resources

May be necessary for the fair distribution of health resources. (A Utilitarianism Approach)

Some countries have shortage of health resources.

Some people with curable illnesses aren’t able to get treatment. But, at the same time resources are being used on people who cannot be cured, and might prefer not to continue living.

Pro-Euthanasia Objection: Medical Resources

This proposal is an entirely pragmatic one; it says that we should allow euthanasia because it will allow more people to be happy. Such arguments will not convince anyone who believes that euthanasia is wrong in principle.

Even for people who endorse Utilitarianism will object because they believe that such a proposal is wide-open to abuse.

In the end, they fear, people will be expected to commit euthanasia as soon as they become an unreasonable burden on society.

Pro-Euthanasia Argument:Libertarian Arguments

This is a variation of the individual rights argument.

If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights then that action is morally acceptable.

In some cases, euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone involved and violates no one's rights.

It is therefore morally acceptable.

Pro-Euthanasia Objections:Libertarian Arguments

people sometimes think things are in their best interests that are not morally acceptable

The arguments that euthanasia is intrinsically wrong fit in here

People are sometimes wrong about what's in their best interests

People may not realize that committing euthanasia may harm other people.

Pro-Euthanasia Argument: Right to Die

Individuals have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, including the choice to end their life.

Behind this lies the idea that human beings should be as free as possible - and that unnecessary restraints on human rights are a bad thing.

Pro-Euthanasia Objections: Right to Die

Slippery Slope: If euthanasia is accepted as a right, vulnerable individuals (the elderly, disabled, or terminally ill) might feel pressured to choose death to avoid being a financial or emotional burden on their families.

While pro-euthanasia advocates argue that bodily autonomy and privacy grant a right to die, opponents argue that human rights exist to protect life, not to justify ending it.

Even if there is a right to die, that doesn't mean that doctors have a duty to kill, so no doctor can be forced to help the patient who wants euthanasia.

The sanctity of life principle holds that human life is inherently valuable and should not be intentionally ended. Many religions argue that life is a gift from God, and humans do not have the moral authority to end it.

Pro-Euthanasia Argument: Right to Avoid Unnecessary Suffering

People suffering from unbearable pain and incurable conditions should have the choice to end their suffering.

Forcing individuals to endure extreme pain contradicts the principle of compassion.

Anti- Euthanasia: There’s no way of properly regulating euthanasia

It’s impossible to set clear, objective criteria for unbearable suffering.

Doctors or institutions may make errors or hide abuses, and legal oversight can’t catch every case.

Anti- Euthanasia: Slippery Slope

Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable.

Anti- Euthanasia: Allowing euthanasia will lead to less good care for the terminally ill

Allowing euthanasia undermines the commitment of doctors and nurses to saving lives

Euthanasia may become a cost-effective way to treat the terminally ill

Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill

Euthanasia undermines the motivation to provide good care for the dying, and good pain relief

Anti- Euthanasia: The Epistemic Problem: euthanasia might not be in a person's best interests.

There are the number of cases in which a patient may ask for euthanasia, or feel obliged to ask for it, when it isn't in their best interest.

Anti- Euthanasia OBJECTION: The Epistemic Problem: euthanasia might not be in a person's best interests.

Supporters of euthanasia say these are good reasons to make sure the euthanasia process will not be rushed, and agree that a well-designed system for euthanasia will have to take all these points into account.

They say that most of these problems can be identified by assessing the patient properly, and, if necessary, the system should discriminate against the opinions of people who are particularly vulnerable.

Anti-Euthanasia: The Sanctity of Life

Religious perspective: Many faiths, including Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, hold that life is a sacred gift from God, and euthanasia violates divine will.

Secular perspective: Even without religion, society values human dignity, and legalizing euthanasia could weaken the moral commitment to preserving life.

Anti-Euthanasia: Proper Palliative Care Makes Euthanasia Unnecessary.

Palliative care is physical, emotional and spiritual care for a dying person when cure is not possible. It includes compassion and support for family and friends.

Competent palliative care may well be enough to prevent a person feeling any need to contemplate euthanasia.

Singer argues that the wrongness of killing is largely tied to the presence of rationality, autonomy, and a sense of self over time.

Lack of Autonomy: Since these individuals have never had the capacity to make autonomous decisions about their lives, euthanasia does not violate their autonomy in the way it would for a competent adult.

If an individual (such as a newborn or a severely intellectually disabled person) lacks self-awareness, then they do not have a future-oriented sense of existence, and their life does not hold the same moral weight as that of a self-aware person.

The Replaceability Argument:

Singer suggests that if the death of a severely disabled infant leads to the birth of another child with better life prospects, this can be justified under total utilitarianism, which seeks to maximize overall happiness.

The Replaceability Argument Objection

Some reject Singer’s idea that infants are replaceable, arguing that human beings are not interchangeable like objects. The idea that killing a disabled infant is justified if parents plan to have a non-disabled child treats life as expendable and could lead to justifying infanticide for various other reasons.

Quality of Life Justification

If an infant is expected to have a life full of suffering or a significantly reduced quality of life, Singer argues that euthanasia could be justified.