Callahan's "A Case Against Euthanasia" - Study Notes

Exam Information

  • Students need a "food book" or "green book" for the exam in less than a month.

  • Only student ID on the first page ensures anonymous grading by the TA.

Importance of Readings

  • Completing assigned readings is crucial for effective learning, allowing students to better grasp lecture material and utilize multiple learning opportunities (readings, lecture, office hours).

Callahan's "A Case Against Euthanasia"

Callahan views suicide as a "really bad and serious" act, opposing it as contrary to "reason, emotion, and tradition" and unfit for medical facilitation.

Argumentative Strategy: The Negative Strategy

  • Callahan indirectly argues against active voluntary euthanasia by refuting the three most prominent arguments in its favor, aiming to show it is not morally permissible.

Refutation of Pro-Euthanasia Arguments

1. The Argument from the Right of Self-Determination

  • Callahan counters that euthanasia is not a private act but a social one, involving a doctor. Legalizing it would introduce a new socially acceptable form of killing, profoundly altering society and the physician's traditional role of preserving life, similar to his Duel Analogy emphasizing societal transformation.

2. The Argument from the Duty to Relieve Suffering (Argument from Mercy)

  • He argues the "duty to relieve suffering is not absolute" and does not override other moral duties, such as preserving life.

3. The Argument of No Moral Difference Between Passive and Active Euthanasia

  • Callahan explicitly rejects the moral equivalence between intentional killing (active euthanasia) and intentional letting die (passive euthanasia), asserting that the disease causes death in passive euthanasia, whereas active euthanasia involves a direct intervention to cause death.

Callahan's Conclusion: Euthanasia and the Law

Callahan opposes legalizing active voluntary euthanasia, citing:

  • Negative Social Consequences: It would fundamentally alter the physician's role and send a "wrong message" to society by legalizing another form of killing.

  • Difficulties in Regulation: Doctor-patient confidentiality would hinder effective monitoring, leading to potential abuses.

  • Catering to a Small Minority: He questions enacting a law with such profound social implications primarily to satisfy a "small minority" seeking control over their death.