PY 1103 Moral Problems, Topic 3: Euthanasia
Definition:
death that is good for the person who dies.
Passive euthanasia: the person is allowed to die, by suspending medical
treatment.
Active euthanasia: the person is actively killed.
3 kinds of euthanasia:
Voluntary euthanasia: the personŐs death is at that personŐs request.
Non-voluntary euthanasia:
the person is not capable of making a rational decision about their own fate
(eg,new-born infants, people suffering senile dementia) and the decision to let
them die or to end their life is taken on their own behalf because it is judged
to be in their best interests.
Involuntary euthanasia: the person is allowed to die or killed against their
will.
For all practical purposes, involuntary euthanasia is ruled out. The debate over legalising euthanasia focuses on voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia.
Argument against euthanasia:
1.
The sanctity of life (applies to voluntary and non-voluntary passive and
active euthanasia)
Being
alive is intrinsically valuable for every human being. There can therefore be no such thing as
a death that is good for the person who dies.
Two moral judgements follow from the belief that human
life is valuable in itself:
1.
Taking human life is intrinsically wrong, under any circumstances.
2.
Failing to preserve a human life is intrinsically wrong, under any
circumstances.
On one interpretation of the
principle, when someone is irreversibly unconsciousness, their life is
still intrinsically valuable. It follows that the respirator should
not be turned off.
Objection:
from someoneŐs subjective point of view, there is no difference between
irreversible
unconsciousness and death. They
therefore cannot be harmed by being allowed to die.
On an alternative
interpretation, the life of every conscious human being is intrinsically
valuable,
whatever the level of that consciousness, and whatever
the circumstances.
Objections:
1.
Mere awareness of the environment is not valuable.
2.
Speceisist: it justifies the claim that human lives are more valuable than the
lives of
other
animals purely on the basis of membership of the species homo sapiens, which is
a
morally
arbitrary category.
Kantian
view: the lives of persons (i.e.
rational autonomous agents) have a special value, that the
lives of animals lack. (Not all human beings are persons).
Utilitarian view: normally the lives of persons are especially
valuable, because of the joys that are
distinctive of personhood, such as self-awareness,
deep personal relationships, etc.
It is
therefore normally (equally) wrong to destroy or fail
to save a personŐs life. But human
beings with very severe brain damage are incapable of
these experiences of personhood.
Moreover, when positive experiences are not possible,
then being alive ceases to be of value,
and may become disvaluable.
2.
The claim that it is intrinsically wrong to kill another human being. (This argument is based on the view
that there is a sharp moral distinction between killing and letting die, and
applies only to active euthanasia.)
1.
Pressure from family members.
2.
Slippery slope.
A: Logical: it is impossible to
discriminate between unjustified and justified cases of
euthanasia.
B: Psychological: a policy of
euthanasia could lead to unjustified killings, by eroding the
psychological barriers against
killing.
Arguments in favour of
euthanasia:
1.
The argument from mercy (applies to active and passive voluntary and
non-voluntary
euthanasia)
When someone is enduring unbearable pain which can
only be ended by death, death may be in
their best interests.
2.
The argument from autonomy (only applies to voluntary euthanasia)
We should respect personsŐ
capacity to make rational decisions on their own behalf.
3.
The argument from the Golden Rule (applies to active and passive voluntary
and non-voluntary
euthanasia).