'Is there a moral difference between active and passive euthanasia'

definitions

active euthansia → actively and intently choosing to end someones life

passive euthansia → death occurs as a secondary effect/consquence of a medical action

ARGUMENT → there is a moral difference that should be observered between active and passive euthanasia, natural law is right to suggest that there is a difference between the administration of euthansia. But the moral difference between these two forms of euthanasia should not just stop here, this is because ulitimately euthanasia is a deeply personal and relatvist decsision that requires a focus on the individual within a situation, rather than society as a whole. Thus there is a moral difference between active and passive euthanansia, but also a deeper moral within the choice to be euthansiased.

PARA 1 → natural law says that there is a moral difference between active and passive euthanasia this is because natural law defends our sancitiy of life vs Situation ethics and qualitly of life

  • active euthansia is fundementally immoral, this is because it sits firmly agaisnt the primary precepts and thus cannot be a way of reflecting God

  • natural law should ultimately be upheld, this is because it is protectionist of human rights, ultimately we have a sancity of life to defend

  • Thus aquinas highlights how active euthansia is immoral, he approach should be taken because he upholds human rights and prevents a moral slip

  • griez and boyle further develop suggesting that we do not stop reflecting the image of God even when we are on our deathbed, being a human goes beyond just bodily functions

  • COUNTER → Situation ethics, takes a personalism approach (one of 4 working principles) , moralitly should not be absolusits like aquinas suggests in his sancity of life approach, but rather we should take things on a case by case basis.

  • Situation ethics therefore may be a better approach to take since fletcher reflects a more practical approach towards the process of euthansia, which is a personal moral issuse rather than a universal moral issuse that the sancity of life defends

  • peter singer → qualitly of life should be uphold, not fair to let people contuinsely suffer despite having the medical capablities to help them

  • OVERALL → SE better as it focuses on the individual within the situation and doesnt try and apply sancity of life, absoulist, moral principle to everyone. Particuarly signficant in the increasing secularist society that is not as bound by such principles.

PARA 2 → natural law and the double effect vs situation ethics and agape focus

  • Natural law makes a dinsitiction between our actions and the intention behind them, through the doctinire of the double effect

  • useful way of looking at euthanasia as it helps to morally distinguish between active and passive euthanasia, passive euthanasia is permittable only if the intention of the act was to relieve pain

  • natural therefore creates a moral disctincition that allows the nessiacrly flexibilitly within euthansia to occur

  • Pope John paul II supports this making it an offical catholic church statement

  • COUNTER → situation ethics however challanges the moral dinsction that aquinas makes between active and passive euthansia - he challanges that there is often not a difference between are actions and ommisions there are cases where agape requires the compassionate response of helping someone to end their life whether this by an act or omission is not morally signifcant. it is difficult to ulitmately know what the actual intention behind someones actions is

  • situation ethics focuses intently on agape, it does not try and distinguish too deeply between principles but rather just let us focus on doing the loving thing

  • the double effect may try and make a moral dinstiniction between active and passive euthansia but it may not actually be that practically helpful in comparision to a principle like agape that sets the moral boundary at love - something that we can understand theoriectially and apply physicallly

  • OVERALL → the double effect is an attempt to create greater individualitly within situations by aquinas, but ulitmately it does very little to really disntiguish between the moral boundaries of active and passive euthansia because of its practical issuses. Situation ethics on the other hand focuses on agape which is an intention that we can understand and personally reflect on.

PARA 3 → autonomony within active and passive euthanasia

  • natural law can be said to create a greater moral boundary within the processes of active and passive euthansia because it gives us less autonomony and provides a more stuctured response

  • aquinas rejects the use of full autonomony as signifcant within euthanasia, which helps to prevent an overlly rash and often emotional approach being taken. Being given the opition of passive or active euthanasia is a big decision to make and requires time to think and consider, so his morally clear approach may be useful in the actual processes of euthansia

  • God is uliatmely in control of our life and death, aquinas sets this moral boundairy within his theory that rejects active euthanaisia but may accept some levels of passive euthanasia

  • COUNTER → situation ethics fundementally supports autnomony within our decision making, it is the key principle of his ethic

  • fletcher believes that humans have the rational capaiblties to decide for themselves what is moral in their own situations

  • however archbisop fisher is sepctical is we are actually able to decide for ourselves witin a situation the moral differences within our actions, he highlights the phenomon of the slippery slope + subjectivity issuses within using such moral standards

  • Love itself may be subjective but agape itself is not, it is unconditional love and this would not support the elderly being euthanasised… JL robinson furthers this by suggesting that humanity has come of age whereby it is able to make their own situation based decisions that are moral. situation ethics stands up to his whilst natural law is too rigid within its laws that it does not grant the autonomny that rational human beings of the 21st century should be given.

  • OVERALL → there is a moral difference between active and passive euthanasia, but this moral difference can be found, just as situation ethics highlights, using our own reason and application of agape to our situations. Natural law meanwhile is not nuanced enough to create the larger scope of moral disction that we require.