euthanasia

biblical teachings: Book of job

• Old Testament book of Job chapter 1, verse one says that, ‘Naked I came from my mother’s womb and naked shall I return there; the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away.’ 

• Traditionally, this passage has been understood to mean that God is the giver of life and that life is a gift. It is therefore up to Him when it should start and finish. A person does not have the freedom to decide to end his own or anyone else’s life. 

Roman Catholic Church

• against euthanasia, seeing it in the same light as murder. 

•  In the 1968 Papal encyclical (a letter sent to all Catholic bishops) Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI emphasized that ‘human life is sacred’. 

• According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (a summary of the main Catholic teachings) ‘We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.’ 

The C of E

also disagrees with euthanasia. They echo the Roman Catholic Church in their belief in the sanctity of human life. However, they also teach that it is not always right to strive to keep a patient alive for as long as possible regardless of their quality of life. 

Hans Kung

• Hans Küng asserts that human dignity includes the right to make autonomous decisions about one’s life, including the end of life.

• He emphasizes that individuals should have the freedom to decide when their suffering has become intolerable, and this choice should be respected by others, including religious authorities, bc god gave us free will

• Küng views euthanasia as an act of compassion, aligning with the Christian ethic of care.

• He argues that prolonging life at all costs, particularly when it leads to severe suffering or loss of quality of life, contradicts Christian values of love and well-being.

• Küng criticizes the Catholic Church’s rigid opposition to euthanasia, calling for a more compassionate and flexible approach.

FOR: sitch ethics

• A situationist would probably say that, even if euthanasia was illegal, it may well sometimes be right to break the law and help someone to die. 

• Situationists might, nevertheless, be worried that a law that allowed voluntary euthanasia could put pressure on people who didn’t want to die. An example might be elderly people in poor health who no longer wished to be a burden on the relatives caring for them. 

• They might therefore argue that there need to be robust safeguards against the misuse of any euthanasia rules. 

•  Joseph Fletcher himself supported the view that a person may have a right to die because, for a Christian, death is not the end, and ending a life of great pain might be the most loving thing to do.

• This is because Fletcher thought that the quality of a person’s life was more important than the sanctity of life, and that to keep someone alive when they are suffering and in great pain was purposeless, demoralizing and degrading

FOR: Religious responses to nonvoluntary euthanasia

• the teachings on the sanctity of life apply, as does the primary precept in Natural Moral Law theory about the preservation of life. 

•  In some cases, Christians might regard passive euthanasia and letting nature take its course to be morally acceptable, with the result that the patient dies.

• As no medical intervention takes place, the doctors and medical staff would not be ‘playing God’.

• in Catholic teaching, using extraordinary measures to keep a patient alive is thought of as unnecessary, though there is some debate about where the lines should be drawn in this respect e.g. whether the use of a respirator represents an extraordinary treatment. 

• In 2004, Pope John Paul II stated firmly that a feeding tube must not be withdrawn from patients in a vegetative state, saying that ‘the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act.’ 

• However, it is hard to see how the use of a feeding tube is not a medical act, given that inserting one is not something that people without medical training can do. 

Singer on non-voluntary euthanasia

• His view is absolutely consistent with his views about abortion. At the point where the fetus might be able to feel pain (roughly about the 18 week stage of gestation), the method used to abort the fetus should be as painless as possible, because even though a fetus is not a person the fact that it can experience pain should be taken into consideration.

• Similarly, active euthanasia might relieve pain more quickly in cases where the patient has lost their sense of personhood, but perhaps not their capacity to experience pain. 

• Additionally, Singer argues against the distinction between active and passive euthanasia.

• As both types of euthanasia typically result in the death of the person, the consequences are the same.

• But when treatment is withheld, as in passive euthanasia (e.g. by not administering a course of antibiotics that might keep a patient with dementia alive), a lingering, painful death often results, while ‘nature takes its course.

• He therefore believes that active euthanasia is more humane. 

glover on assisted suicide + voluntary euthanasia

• Glover states that ‘it may in a particular instance be right to provide the help needed for suicide’ and that ‘if assisted suicide is possible, it is always to be preferred to voluntary euthanasia’ as this preserves the principle of autonomy that he values so highly.

• Additionally, he writes that, ‘If we know that a person himself knowingly took a lethal pill, there is by comparison with euthanasia little ambiguity about the nature of his decision...But where the person does not perform the final act himself, there is always more room for doubt about the extent to which he desired death.’ 

• Glover acknowledges that a request for euthanasia may not always be an expression of a carefully considered decision and that a ‘thorough discussion, repeated on several occasions ‘ would be required so as to ‘form a better impression of the person’s preferences’ and to ensure that the decision is an informed one e.g. that it is not being made because the patient has formed an exaggerated view of the pain involved in a particular illness. 

glover on legalisation of euthanasia

argues that concerns about the legalization of euthanasia could be mitigated by looking at how it is practised in other countries. The law here might then be modified for a trial period in order that the consequences of such a change might then be assessed. 

glover on diverging attitudes abt types of euthanasia

• Glover critiques the traditional view that active euthanasia (e.g., administering a lethal injection) is morally worse than passive euthanasia (e.g., withdrawing life-sustaining treatment). He argues that this distinction is based more on psychological comfort than on sound ethical reasoning. For Glover, the focus should be on the intention and consequences rather than the means of achieving the outcome. 

• Example: If withdrawing a ventilator and administering a lethal injection both relieve suffering and lead to death, Glover suggests there is no meaningful moral difference between the two. 

• If the intention is to relieve suffering, then both acts and omissions can be morally defensible. 

• If the intention is to harm, both become ethically problematic 

• “If letting someone die is as much under our control as killing, it is equally serious.” 

SUPPORT: singer

• Principle of Autonomy: Singer, in Practical Ethics (1979), argues that individuals should have the right to decide the course of their lives, including the right to die. For Singer, autonomy is a fundamental ethical principle, and respecting a person’s wishes about their life and death is a core aspect of treating them as moral agents.

• Utilitarianism: Singer’s utilitarian framework emphasizes minimizing suffering and maximizing well-being. He asserts that euthanasia can reduce unnecessary suffering for terminally ill patients who face prolonged physical or emotional pain.

• Quality of Life: Singer challenges the sanctity-of-life doctrine, advocating instead for a focus on the quality of life. He argues that when life becomes a burden due to pain or loss of dignity, euthanasia can be a compassionate response.

CRITICISM: leon kass

• Sanctity of Life: Kass defends the sanctity-of-life doctrine, arguing that life’s inherent value should not be contingent on an individual’s subjective experience of pain or suffering. He asserts that endorsing euthanasia undermines the moral commitment to preserving human life.

• Slippery Slope Argument: Kass warns that accepting voluntary euthanasia could lead to non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. He highlights historical examples, such as the Nazi euthanasia program, to demonstrate the dangers of normalizing the practice.

• Impact on the Medical Profession: Kass, in his essay The Wisdom of Repugnance (1997), contends that euthanasia undermines the moral integrity of medical practitioners by shifting their role from healers to agents of death.

SUPPORT: JS Mill

• Harm Principle: Mill’s harm principle, articulated in On Liberty (1859), supports the idea that individuals should be free to make decisions about their lives, including the choice to end their suffering, as long as it does not harm others.

• Personal Sovereignty: Mill’s emphasis on personal sovereignty aligns with arguments for euthanasia that prioritize individual choice and self-determination over societal or religious norms.

• Criticism of Paternalism: Mill’s rejection of paternalism challenges the idea that the state or medical authorities should dictate end-of-life decisions, framing euthanasia as a matter of personal liberty.