Euthanasia

“Strong” sanctity of life principle

Human life is always sacred

There are no ordinary or extraordinary means that justify its termination

Vitalism

Supports strong sanctity of life principle - idea that human life is always sacred because it possesses a divine spark from the moment of conception

What Strong SoL principle means to Christians

1) Humans reflect something of God’s own attributes - ability to love, or have sentient capacity

2) Humans have capacity for rational and moral decision making

Life is on “loan” to us

WE are created imago dei - we are superior to other beings.

WE are the only beings that can fulfil God’s likeness.

SO MURDER considered BLASPHEMY - ending lives is solely GOD’s jurisdiction

Essentially SoL considers all forms of euthanasia (deliberate termination of another human life) murder

Arguments FOR Strong SoL principle:

• Innocent lives must always be respected

• Slippery slope

• Life is always to be loved and protected:

  • Basis of Christianity is Agape - selfless love for the other, regardless of background

One of proponents of SoL principle

John Locke - analyses humanity in state of nature

Argues for NATURAL RIGHTS we are born with by virtue of being human.

Law of Nature is REASON - teaches us we are all equal, made in God’s image, we are his “servants” and “workmanship”

• We are God’s property - we do not have the right to infringe on own / others’ lives as a result. Only God can make that decision for us.

“Weak” SoL Principle

Human life is sacred, but there are exceptional circumstances in which ending a life is not murder

Typically liberal view

• SoL is IMPORTANT, but it is not the only one within Christianity

• Take into account quality of life, because Jesus emphasises COMPASSION

For example CofE: (if mother’s life in danger, fetus to be sacrificed)

‘The Church of England combines strong opposition to abortion with a recognition that there can be – strictly limited – conditions under which it may be morally preferable to any available alternative.’

Weak SoL SUPPORT of euthanasia in some cases:

1) Killing person out of love NOT morally equivalent to murder

• Murder implies ulterior motive of revenge/ greed/ cruelty

2) Nobody has duty to endure life of extreme pain - Paul calls Christians a “living sacrifice” but this does not mean enduring pointless pain/sufferin

3) Life is a gift, not a burden - we can dispose of it as we see fit. Would not be gift it was still owned by God. Humans are new owners of God’s gift - up to them as good stewards to decide when to end it

Euthanasia definition

Derived from Greek “good death”

• Person A ends the life of person B for the sake of person B

Non-voluntary euthanasia

Person is unable to decide between life and death for themselves (PVA, mental issues, infant) so decision is made by somebody else

Passive euthanasia

Non-treatment decision

• Decision of medical professionals to withhold medical treatment/ life support keeping person alive

Persistent Vegetative State (PVS)

Condition where patient with severe brain damage is in state of partial arousal, not true awareness

• "a wakeful unconscious state that lasts longer than a few weeks”

Dignity

Lactantius - God created human beings as sacred animal, therefore we have dignity (inherent worth/sacredness)

Used by denominations AGAINST euthanasia:

Catholic Church - euthanasia is “morally unacceptable”

Quality of life principle

• Life has instrumental value, not intrinsic

• What makes life valuable is the quality it has in terms of balance of happiness over suffering

• Question about EXPERIENCE of life, not its intrinsic qualities

Esther Rantzen

• Advocates for “Dignity in dying”

• Was diagnose with stage 4 lung cancer in 2023, and since has campaigned for law to be changed to allow those with terminal illness to be able to choose to end their life

• Right to choose time of own death is important to maintain dignity

Autonomy

• Ability to act fully of one’s own accord

Mill on autonomy

• “Humans are the best judge of their own happiness”

• Should be given maximum freedom to live lives as they consider appropriate

• Only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over and against will of member of society - to prevent harm to others

• Harm principle = free to do whatever insofar as it does not harm others

Nozick on autonomy

• Principle of self-ownership

• “self” includes body, organs, talents, will, personality and identity

• It combined features that distinguish one individual human being from another and features common to all human beings.

• We have bodily INTEGRITY - control over what happens to our bodies

So we should have to free will to act on our desires…

EVAL of autonomy as key principle

• Autonomy should NOT entail being free to act based on any desire, because we have tendency to act IRRATIONALLY due to emotions - have lapses in judgement

• We should understand autonomy in terms of a person’s “ideal” desires - their desires in world with perfect information and rationality

• Singer - example of lovesick teenager who wants to die for short-sighted reasons - we can “safely predict” they will overcome their issues

• We need to think of autonomy in a consequentialist sense - not as an absolute right, but alongside future consequences, long-term interests

• EUTHANASIA NOT justified when person’s desire to die is temporary, irrational, or likely to change

Jacqueline du Pré

• Allegedly died by lethal injection in 1987

• Because she was left unable to play cello due to multiple sclerosis (late 20s)

Personhood

Person not equal to human being.

• Person gets special rights + considerations above those who are not

• Personhood seeks to distinguish a functioning human body and human beings which we should preserve because they retain defining features of humanity

Personhood - criterion (Ge)

Genetic criterion:

• Human DNA qualifies somebody as a person

• Christian view - Imago Dei

Personhood criterion - Co

Cognitive Criterion:

MARY ANNE WARREN - five qualities being a person entails:

• Consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, capacity to communicate, self-awareness

Personhood criterion - Se

Sentience criterion

PETER SINGER: three characteristics

1) Being self aware

2) Capable of perceiving themselves as individuals through time

3) Ability to feel pleasure + pain

(Discrimination in favour of humans is SPECIESISM - animals may fall into above categories)

Justification of QoL principle

SINGER:

• SoL based on outdated Christian view. Society’s attitude to life has changed - we now want autonomy over how we die.

• Preference utilitarian - reason killing is wrong is because it violates the desire of the individual to continue living

• If preference is to die, euthanasia is therefore justified

• Non-voluntary euthanasia also justified - cannot express preference, but have interest in not suffering unnecessarily

Issue with QoL - slippery slope

• Allowing euthanasia for QoL may result in some feeling pressured to end their lives, feeling they are burden

• There is economic incentive to end life rather than provide treatment - undermining sacred status of life

Voluntary euthanasia : strengths + weaknesses

Strengths:

• Person has full autonomy to make decision

• Compassionate response to suffering

• Removes need to commit suicide without medical help - less damage inflicted

Weaknesses:

• Is person making truly autonomous decision if they are in pain?

• Difficult to understand CONSENT - cannot be emotionally charged, must be rational

Jonathan Glover - three factors to consider when VE requested

1) Helper should be convinced decision is serious

2) Helper should think decision is reasonable

3) Are these circumstances likely to change?

(Basically attempting to create a clear criterion for euthanasia eligibility to avoid criticisms of granting full autonomy. Fails, because these are value judgements largely made by helper - huge amount of moral responsibility where there is imperfect information)

Glover on reasons given against VE

“Side Effects” - he REJECTS these ideas (+ basis):

1) Allowing VE could lead to involuntary euthanasia

(Uses example of Nazi Germany - involuntary euthanasia was simply result of evil ideology)

2) Allowing VE would lead people not to seek medical care

(We do not know how people would behave - cannot assume they would fear going to the hospital)

3) Allowing VE would detrimentally affect palliative care

(If anything, improves?)

“Living will”

• Prepared by competent person outlining their wishes in the case that they suffer irreparable debilitating injury

Tine Nys case

• In Belgium, euthanasia legalised for beyond terminal illness

• 2010 - she was euthanised for “unbearable psychological suffering” linked to relationship problems + mental distress

• Family later challenged decision

• Questions about whether she was properly psychiatrically assessed, whether it was treatable?

Fletcher’s personhood criteria

1. Have a minimal intelligence defined by an IQ of 20 or 40.

2. Self-awareness and self-control.

3. A sense of the passage of time, the future and the past.

4. Concern for others.

5. Communication.

6. Control of existence.

7. Curiosity.

8. The possibility of change and changeability.

9. A balance of rationality and feeling.

10. Idiosyncrasy or having an identity.

11. The ability to think.

Passive euthanasia legal?

Can be if:

• Treatment is futile/not in best interests/ refused by patient

Governed by Mental Capacity Act 2005

Re T case

• 1992

• T wanted to refuse treatment after car accident on the basis of mum’s Jehovah’s witness opposition to blood transfusion

• Unclear if it was her decision or pressurised, so treatment was administered

• Ruled that REFUSAL can only be made if patient has mental capacity, is informed, and free from coercion