Euthanasia.

AO1 – Knowledge (15 prompts)

How does the Christian belief in the sanctity of life influence the treatment of humans compared to animals?
How does Psalm 139 support the idea that every human life is planned and known by God?
Why does the Roman Catholic Church oppose euthanasia and suicide based on the sanctity of life principle?
How does Peter Singer’s quality of life principle challenge the traditional sanctity of life view?
What are Peter Singer’s five quality-of-life commandments and how do they question traditional sanctity of life beliefs?
How does the total happiness judgement in utilitarianism assess whether a life is worth continuing?
How do the average happiness and higher qualities judgements determine when life may no longer be worth living?
What are the differences between voluntary euthanasia, assisted suicide, and non-voluntary euthanasia?
Why do supporters argue that advance decisions can count as voluntary consent for euthanasia?
How does Dianne Pretty’s case illustrate the conflict between personal autonomy and legal restrictions on assisted dying?
What ethical issues are raised by the Tony Bland case about decision-making for patients unable to express their wishes?
Why is diagnosing brain death in patients with PVS medically and ethically challenging?
How does the concept of “best interests” complicate decisions about life support or euthanasia for patients in PVS?
How does the sanctity of life principle apply to 21st-century medical ethics?
How does Peter Singer’s quality of life principle and Joseph Fletcher’s consequentialism apply to 21st-century medical ethics?

AO2 – Evaluation (15 prompts)

To what extent does a person have complete autonomy over their own life and decisions about it?
Why might some argue a person does not have full autonomy over life and death decisions?
Is there a moral difference between medical intervention and medical non-intervention to end a patient’s life?
How might one argue that there is no moral difference between medical intervention and non-intervention?
How does Joseph Fletcher’s situation ethics justify euthanasia through love and compassion?
How do Fletcher’s four working principles guide moral justification of active and passive euthanasia?
Why does Natural Law insist on distinguishing between allowing someone to die and actively ending a life?
How does Natural Law justify the prohibition of euthanasia and assisted suicide?
How does the doctrine of double effect distinguish morally acceptable care from euthanasia according to the Catholic Church?
How does the ethical argument for quality of life justify euthanasia or assisted suicide?
How does the pragmatic argument use DNACPR orders and palliative sedation to support euthanasia legalisation?
How does the sanctity of life principle form the basis of the religious argument against euthanasia?
What concerns are raised by the slippery slope argument against legalising euthanasia?
How could legalising euthanasia impact the doctor-patient relationship according to medical ethics?
How do utilitarian and consequentialist approaches, like those of Singer and Fletcher, challenge religious views on euthanasia?

AO1 – Knowledge

Christians hold the belief in the sanctity of life – human life is holy, unique, and God-given, as seen in Genesis where God breathes life directly into Adam, unlike animals or plants. Humans are made in the image of God, reflecting His nature, and because humans have souls that continue after death, they must be treated with special value and dignity.
Psalm 139 teaches God has personal and detailed knowledge of every human life, even before birth, describing God “knitting” each person in the womb, showing every life is planned, known, and valued by God. Humans are uniquely sacred because they have souls and are made in the image of God.
Christians, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, oppose euthanasia and suicide because life is a gift from God, and suicide rejects this gift and the possibility of redemption. Biblical examples include King Saul and Judas, condemned for rejecting God’s love. Accepting euthanasia creates a “culture of death,” undermining dignity and risking vulnerable groups.
Peter Singer’s quality of life principle suggests life only has value if it allows experiences that make life worth living. It does not see life as intrinsically good and claims value depends on a person’s desires and preferences, rather than a soul or mystical “enduring self.”
Singer’s five quality-of-life commandments: human life has varying worth; be responsible for consequences; respect a person’s wish to live or die; only bring children into the world if wanted; do not discriminate based on species. These challenge traditional sanctity of life beliefs, illustrated by the Baby Doe case, by basing moral decisions on actual capabilities and circumstances rather than divine authority.
The total happiness judgement in utilitarianism says life has value if overall happiness can increase. If pain dominates and happiness cannot grow further, life may no longer be worth living and could justifiably be ended.
The average happiness judgement assesses life’s value based on whether overall happiness remains high; if it drops permanently, life may no longer be worth living. The higher qualities judgement evaluates key capacities like memory, relationships, reasoning, and hope; lacking these permanently may justify ending life. Supporters of voluntary euthanasia argue life may be ended gently when it no longer holds value.
Voluntary euthanasia occurs at the person’s request due to incurable illness. Assisted suicide involves help from another without terminal illness. Non-voluntary euthanasia ends life without consent but with a representative deciding. Passive euthanasia withdraws or withholds treatment, allowing death naturally. Suicide is ending one’s life voluntarily. Physician-aided suicide and aid in dying involve doctor assistance in different capacities.
Advance decisions count as voluntary consent if a person has clearly stated their wish beforehand, even if they’re incompetent at the moment of death. This applies when they have a terminal illness, face unbearable pain, or life is overwhelmingly burdensome.
Dianne Pretty’s case illustrates the conflict between personal autonomy and legal restrictions: she had motor neurone disease, sought assistance to die peacefully, but courts rejected her appeals, highlighting tension between law, autonomy, and compassion.
Tony Bland’s case raises ethical issues about making decisions for those unable to express wishes: Bland was in a PVS, doctors withdrew life support, showing doctors aren’t obliged to maintain life at all costs and raising questions about serving best interests.
Diagnosing brain death in PVS patients is challenging because traditional death was defined by heart stoppage, but brain activity may persist at a low level, making determinations difficult and time-consuming.
“Best interests” complicate decisions about life support and euthanasia in PVS patients, as determining whether to continue treatment involves medical and moral judgment, impacting decisions like organ donation that require the “dead donor rule.”
In 21st-century medical ethics, the sanctity of life principle holds life as a gift from God; humans are stewards of life and don’t have authority to end it. Aquinas links it to natural law and primary precepts like defending innocent life. Utilitarians judge life by happiness, considering a life worthwhile if happiness outweighs unhappiness.
Peter Singer and Joseph Fletcher challenge the sanctity of life principle: Singer bases life’s value on desires and preferences, Fletcher argues morality depends on outcomes and each case should be judged individually. Life is a gift, and humans, as stewards, have responsibility and authority over how it’s used and when it ends.

AO2 – Evaluation

Yes, a person has complete autonomy: Singer’s commandments replace sanctity of life with personal choice; Fletcher argues euthanasia can be morally acceptable if loving; Helga Kuhse disputes slippery slope fears; life is a gift, and humans have authority to decide responsibly when it should end.
No, a person doesn’t have complete autonomy: sanctity of life holds only God decides; Diane Pretty’s case shows law protects life but not right to die; slippery slope suggests voluntary euthanasia may lead to involuntary killing; Natural Law and Kantian ethics reject full autonomy over life and death.
Yes, there is a moral difference: sanctity of life principle distinguishes intervention from non-intervention; UK law permits withdrawal of treatment (Tony Bland precedent); Aquinas’ double effect allows relieving pain but not directly killing.
No, there isn’t a moral difference: Singer argues value varies by case and both intervention and non-intervention are acceptable; Fletcher says morality depends on outcomes and both can be equivalent if loving; Bentham’s hedonic calculus evaluates greatest happiness for either action.
Fletcher’s situation ethics justifies euthanasia through love and compassion: euthanasia can be morally right if it is the most loving action for oneself or others.
Fletcher’s four working principles guide euthanasia: pragmatism – judge each case individually; relativism – killing isn’t absolutely wrong if guided by love; positivism – laws are human-made, not preserving life at all costs; personalism – respect for human integrity and autonomy prioritizes humanity over mere biological existence.
Natural Law distinguishes allowing someone to die (permissible) from actively ending life (wrong) to uphold primary precepts of self-preservation, protecting innocent life, and societal well-being.
Natural Law prohibits euthanasia and assisted suicide to maintain orderly society, uphold duty to God, provide basic care, and protect innocent life; non-voluntary euthanasia is prohibited, and assisted suicide is considered murder.
The doctrine of double effect allows death only as an unintended side effect of pain-relieving treatment; directly intending death is morally wrong according to the Catholic Church.
Ethical argument for euthanasia: focuses on personal choice, dignity, and quality of life; life is only worth continuing if the person believes it meaningful, rejecting the religious claim life is always sacred.
Pragmatic argument: DNACPR orders and palliative sedation may hasten death; since these occur, proponents argue society might legalize and regulate euthanasia, though interpretations are controversial.
Sanctity of life forms the religious argument against euthanasia: humans are sacred creations of God, only He may decide when life ends; euthanasia and assisted suicide are sinful, though some prioritize quality of life in specific cases.
Slippery slope concerns: voluntary euthanasia could lead to non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia; pressures vulnerable people; discourages palliative care research; risks irreversible mistakes and sets dangerous societal precedent.
Legalising euthanasia could impact doctor-patient relationship: conflicts with duty to preserve life, may erode compassion, harm trust, and make vulnerable patients distrustful of care.
Utilitarian and consequentialist approaches (Singer, Fletcher) challenge religious views by prioritizing happiness, outcomes, and love over rigid sanctity of life rules, allowing moral justification for euthanasia when life lacks quality or prolonging it causes suffering.