Euthanasia

Flashcards for Euthanasia Lecture Review

Euthanasia (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)

Euthanasia is not licit even when someone requests it or when a sick person is no longer able to live. It is considered a false mercy and a perversion of compassion.

Euthanasia and Power

The choice of euthanasia becomes graver when committed by others without the person's consent, representing an unjust arrogation of the power to decide who lives and dies, a power belonging to God alone.

James Rachels' View on Active and Passive Euthanasia

Argues that the distinction between killing and letting die lacks moral significance and that if passive euthanasia is permissible, so is active euthanasia.

Traditional View on Allowing Patients to Die

Historically, allowing patients to die in circumstances of hopeless suffering has been viewed as permissible, with killing being zealously opposed.

Active Euthanasia

Taking a positive action designed to kill the patient, such as administering a lethal injection.

Passive Euthanasia

Refraining from doing anything to keep the patient alive, such as withholding medication or life-sustaining therapy.

Moral Equivalence of Active and Passive Euthanasia (Rachels)

Rachels argues that there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia; either both are acceptable, or both are not.

Practical Consequences of the Traditional View on Euthanasia

Employing the traditional distinction can lead to adverse consequences for patients, such as prolonging suffering if treatment is withheld instead of administering a lethal injection.

Down's Syndrome and Duodenal Atresia Case

Illustrates the cruelty of distinguishing between killing and letting die, as infants with Down's syndrome and blocked intestines are sometimes allowed to die, while others live on, showcasing irrational decision-making based on irrelevant factors.

Equivalence Thesis

There is no morally important difference between killing and letting die; if one is permissible (or objectionable), then so is the other, and to the same degree.

Bare Difference Argument

The bare fact that one act is an act of killing, while another is an act of merely letting someone die, is not a morally good reason in support of the judgement that the former is worse than the latter.

Smith and Jones Example

Used to illustrate that the only difference between killing and letting die does not make a moral difference if all other factors are the same.

Counter-Argument 1: Being the Cause of Death

The argument that killing makes one the cause of death, while letting die does not, is countered by stating that the decision to euthanize implies death is not a greater evil than continued suffering.

Counter-Argument 2: Duty Not to Harm vs. Duty to Help

The argument that our duty not to harm is more stringent than our duty to help is countered by pointing out the doctor's duty towards their patients is precisely to help them.

Counter-Argument 3: Doctor's Feelings of Guilt

The argument that doctors may feel guilty about mercy-killing is countered by saying that feelings of guilt do not determine whether the act is wrong.

Physician's Commitments and Euthanasia

Whether physicians' commitments preclude active euthanasia depends on the nature of the commitment, either moral or professional.

Moral Commitments and Euthanasia

Doctors' moral beliefs against active euthanasia do not, by themselves, justify the conclusion that it is wrong for them to practice it as anyone, including doctors, might have mistaken moral beliefs.

Professional Commitments and Euthanasia

Argues whether physicians are professionally committed against active euthanasia, either explicitly through a code or implicitly through their role as healers.

Thomson's Objection

Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that attempts to draw parallels can lead to absurd conclusions and that therefore, the Smith-and-Jones argument doesn't prove anything.

Compromise View Definition

The difference between killing and letting die is sometimes morally important, and sometimes not, depending on the particular case.

Analysing the Compromise View

The analysis leads to the conclusion that one cannot claim a fact sometimes is morally significant and sometimes is not. It must be one way or the other.