Euthanasia

When a person dies as a direct result of their own voluntary action but with the help of another person

When a person dies a s direct result of their own voluntary action but with the help of a doctor

When a persons death is directly caused by another person at their request and consent

When a doctor withdraws life sustaining treatment which indirectly causes death or allows the patient to die by letting “nature take its course”

When a persons life’s is ended without their consent but with the consent of someone representing their interests - eg someone in a persistent vegetative state

Whether it is morally permissible

The 1961 suicide act

Make it morally licit

• A person who aid the suicide of another will be liable for a term not exceeding 14 years

reinforces the principle of sanctity of life by criminalising any form of assisted suicide.

The view that human life is always sacred because it possesses a God-given soul

No- there have been some cases in allowing a person to die as the best course of action

Diane had motor neurone disease and wanted to control the time and manner of her death.

Needed help from her husband to die and wanted the government to guarantee that her husband would not be prosecuted

HOL rejected her case- right to life doesnt include right to die and neither did the right to private life.

ECHR rejected her case- right to life not determined by quality of life so could not be interpreted as also giving a right to die.

They said that Dianes right to choose how to end her life came within her right to respect for private life- ban on assisted suicide justified however.

• Born pre maturely with severe brain damage- against the wishes of her parents- the high court ordered the doctors not to resuscitate the baby if she fell into a coma- her underlying condition did not justify medical assistance required to stay a live

• Demonstrates that the law doe not consider life to be absolutely sacred.

An argument that claims that if a rule is weakened even for good reasons, then what eventually follows if the rue is again weakened for good reasons will be highly undesirable.

• Supporters of the bill slide from making the condition one of actual unbearable suffering form terminal illness to merely the fear discomfort and loss of dignity which terminal illnesses may bring

• IF quality of life is grounds for euthanasia for those who request it then logically this could b extended to those who do not request it

• In the Netherlands where euthanasia is permitted, there is evidence to indicate that many die against their wishes, law cannot easily place safeguards against those who simply choose to ignore them.

Her argument is that the slippery slope argument is used by scaremongers to support their complete ban on euthanasia. - example of slippery slope argument is demonstrated by the active non voluntary euthanasia practised by the Nazis as a from of Eugenics.

However: Helga argues that the motivation behind these killings were not mercy or respect for autonomy, it was racial prejudice and the belief that racial purity required elimination of certain individuals.

The Netherlands is in a “social experiment” with progress and no evidence for a slippery slope argument.

Human life is always valuable from the moment of conception until natural death, there are no exceptions.

Innocent human life must be equally protected

makes a distinction between means which are obligatory (ordinary) and means which are additional and therefore non necessarily obligatory.

Christians believe there are non which can justify the termination of human life.

• Life is set apart by God0 even human being is created in the image and likeness of God- humans a re different from other creatures and possesses a “spark” of divinity within them.

• Life is a gift from god and is on loan to humans- God creator and should determine when it should end.

• An innocent life is always to be respected- Ten Commandments - do not murder

• Life is always to be loved and protected- love requires the Christian to respect and protect all humans regardless of status,gender and age/

• The incarnation of the word of God as man in the person fo Jesus reaffirms the sanctity and intrinsic value of every human life unconditionally in its relationship with God.

• Ten Commandments0 do not murder

• The command in Deuteronomy- “choose life”

• The parable of the Good Samaritan- Samaritan overcomes prejudices to help a badly injured man- love is a central Christian picniple.

• Jesus life and death is a sign of God solve for the world.

• You shall not murder

• Love is patent

• for god so loved the world that he gave his only son

It is Blasphemy- deliberate rejection of Gods gift of life.

Rejects Gods redemption through is victory over death

TO deliberately choose death it to deny that redemption is possible.

King Saul and Judas both committed suicide and are both condemned as those who rejected Gods love.

By accepting euthanasia, society has undermines the sanctity of life and by developing a “culture of death” devalued the dignity and respect of all humans which is very dangerous for it marginalises the weak, the I’ll and the disabled.

The belief that although human life is always valuable, there may be situations where it would cause more harm than good to continue with it.

Does not consider that a killing an innocent person out of love is morally equivalent to murder as murder implies an ulterior motive such as revenge, euthanasia as an act of love in exceptional circumstances is not morally wrong.

• no one has a duty to endure a life of extreme pain

• Life is a gift not a burden- we may use it responsibly and dispose of it as we wish, it would not be a git if the owner still had ownership of it. Humans are now owners of Gods gift of life, it is up to them as good stewards of this life to decide when to end it.

• states that human life h to possess certain attributes in order to have value. Might include experience of happiness, autonomy and being conscience.

The view that something or someone is fo value only if it is useful and achieves a desired end or purpose.

peter Singer- in favour of non religious quality of life principle and rejects sanctity of life.

A persons ability to have desires and preferences.

1. Recognise that the worth of human life varies

2. Take responsibility for the consequences of your decision

3. Respect a persons desire to live/die

4. Bring children into the world only if they are wanted

Do not discriminate on the basis of species.

“ a dog or a pig will often find the non human to have superior capacities”

• Total happiness judgment - if they are in pain, happiness cannot be increased and their life is no longer worth living

• Average happiness judgment- if a persons Average of happiness declines permanently then their life is no longer worth living

• Higher qualities Judgement- A persons equality of life is judged by certain minimum standards which are necessary to live a happy life might include, memory, ability to form relationships and ability to reason.

As developed by MIll and others is that as humans are the best judge of their own happiness they should be given maximum freedom or liberty to live their lives as they consider appropriate.

The value of someone’s life comes from their ability to have autonomy, life is not intrinsically valueable.

Mills liberalism can allow for paternalism if it is in a persons best interest to over rule their autonomy hover this implies that there is a standard greater than autonomy which justifies interference or that an individual may not know what’s good for them.

Does self harm justify paternalism?

That being alive is not itself a sufficient condition for that life being valueble, it must also be conscience.

Killing a life is only wrong if it is conscience

Non-voluntary euthanasia.

• Dr David Moor gave a terminally ill patient a small dose of morphine which resulted in his death- claimed to be accidental to relieve pain and not with the intention of murdering him.

Tensions between those such as Dr Moor who argue that allowing to die is not the same thing as killing, and detectives who consider killing and not killing.

Distinguishes between willling to do X (which is Malloy culpable) and omitting or refraining from doing X ( nor morally culpable if doing C would be to act immorallly)-supported by Deontologists and rejected by consequentialists

The place and nature of intention

Deontologists- whether an act is intended or not intended is crucial in determining ig a person is blameworthy whilst for a consequentialist what matter is the act produces greater or lesser good.

Deontologists

• The action in itself from the outset is good

• the good effect and not the evil is intended

• The good effect is not produced by means of the evil effect

• there is proportionately good reason to permit the evil effect

There is no moral difference between giving a patient drugs which relieve pain and hasten death and drugs which hasten death- if result is the same- intention is not morally significant.

• purity of intention

• Arbitrariness- trolly problem- consequentialist- save five people- deontologist- life complicated logically possible to have prior intentions.

• Ordinary and extra ordinary means- consequentialists consider Deontologists rigid refusal ever to use direct killing can lead to more suffering, loss of dignity and confusion over what constituents “extra ordinary” means

• proportionality and quality of life

“Quality adjusted life year” - takes into account quantity and quality of life generated by healthcare interventions. Makes a calculation of life expectancy and a measure of the quality of the remaining years.

Doctors cannot be expected to maintain a life at all costs

• Is acting paternally or prolonging the life a “brain dead” necessarily in their best interests.

When there is no brain activity and no body function

Being brain dead doesn’t always mean they are actually dead and it can take sometime to determine whether patient is brain dead- difficult to make diagnosis.

Deontological

Fails to make the important distinction between “allowing to die” and “cutting short” a life, without this distinction the primary precept of self preservation and protection of innocent ide would be a threat.

• Undermines all social stability because it undermines the purpose of the citizen to maintain its laws and it is a sign that society has failed in its duty to care for all its members

• undermines social stability

• Must worship God- euthansia is a allure of ones duty to protect life

• Duty to protect innocent life- whatever state of conscience they are still a person- death defined by the cease of a heart bet

• doctrine of ordinary and extraordinary means does not permit a person to refuse ordinary treatment.

• In Evandelicum Vitae the pope makes a distinction between ordinary and extraordinary treatment.

• Must sustain life however extra ordinary treatment is not obligatory.

• Doctrine of double effect

• Consequentialism and Christian weak sanctity of life principle

Doesn’t believe that euthanasia is intrinsically wrong.

1. Pragmastism- Each case has to be judged according to its merits

2. relativism- Killing innocent people cannot be an absolute wrong as each case has to be judged according to love and compassion.

3. positivism- Laws and rules are invited by human to assist in humane treatment of each other and might mean allowing someone to cut their life short- no law which states life should be preserved at all costs

4. Personalism- Respect for a persons autonomy and their human integrity. Humanity is more significant than mere biological existence.