Euthanasia Essay Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Summary of Euthanasia arguments, criticisms and replies to these criticisms. ...

Description

Q. Is euthanasia ever morally permissible? In this essay I will show that the passive only view is false, and that active euthanasia is also morally permissible. I will firstly explain what euthanasia is, and the distinction between active and passive euthanasia. I will explain the passive only view and present James Rachels argument against it. I will then present a possible objection to that argument, but show that it fails to defeat Rachels argument against the passive only view, and that therefore both passive and active euthanasia should be viewed equally moral. Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending an individuals life, who is incurably ill, in order to relive pain and suffering. There are three categories of euthanasia: voluntary, non-voluntary and in-voluntary. This essay will focus on voluntary euthanasia, in which an individual who is self-conscious and rational makes an informed request to be killed. Many believe there is be a moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia refers to when an individual is allowed to die, for example, a cancer patient with a month left to live is taken off of chemotherapy and dies within a week. Active euthanasia refers to the active assistance in an individuals death, for example, the same cancer patient is given a lethal injection of drugs by their doctor, and dies immediately. Some hold the passive only view: passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, but active never is. James Rachels argues against this view. Rachels claims that there is no distinct difference in intention or consequence between active and passive cases of euthanasia. The intent in both passive and active euthanasia is to relieve the patient’s pain, and the consequence of both is that the patient dies. In the cancer patient example given previously, the slight difference in consequence in the active euthanasia scenario, which is a quicker, less painful death for the patient, arguably shows active euthanasia to be more moral as the patient suffers less. Rachels’ argument against the passive only view can be reconstructed as follows:

P1: Active euthanasia is morally permissible only if there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. P2: There is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia if the intention and consequence in both active and passive euthanasia are equal. P3: The intention and consequence in active and passive euthanasia are equal. ----C1: Therefore, there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. ----C2: Therefore, active euthanasia is morally permissible. A possible objection to Rachels’ argument against the passive only view, in particular to premise 1, is presented in the Acts Omission Doctrine. This states that it is, in itself, worse to kill than to let die. The Acts Omission Doctrine can be supported with the involuntary organ donation argument, which goes as follows: Imagine a scenario in which a doctor shares out an antidote between three patients who have been poisoned, who all need a third to survive. He does this instead of giving the antidote to a fourth patient, who would have required all the antidote to survive. The doctor has saved three patients, and allowed one to die. Now imagine a second scenario in which a doctor painlessly kills one patient in order to share out of organs amount three other patients who are waiting on life saving organ donations. The doctor has saved three patients, and killed one. The first is a case of letting die, and the second a case of killing. The consequence of these two acts are the same– one patient dies so that three can live. However, despite the consequence being the same, we would judge these two acts very differently. The first would be morally permissible, while the second would not, so there must be a moral difference between letting die and killing, which would also mean a moral difference between passive and active euthanasia.

Rachels would respond to this objection by denying the Acts Omission Doctrine, which he opposes in his argument against the passive only view, as there are examples that can be offered which conflict with it. One example that would conflict with the Acts Omission Doctrine is as follows: A man intends to strangle his older brother in order to gain a greater inheritance. The same man then witnesses his brother chocking, and despite the fact that he knows the Heimlich manoeuvre, he does not attempt to perform it and instead allows his brother to die. Rachels would argue that there is no moral difference between the man strangling his brother, and not performing the Heimlich manoeuvre, despite the fact that one is a case of killing and the other a case of letting die. This example and the involuntary organ donation example both appear convincing, despite the fact that there conclusions conflict. However, I would argue that the involuntary organ donation example is not convincing in the context of showing active euthanasia to be morally wrong. This is because in the example the death of the organ donor is not voluntary, whereas in the context of euthanasia it would be. The distinction is in the individuals will– if an individual is killed against their will, then this is not permissible. However, if it is their will to be euthanised, and for this to happen actively, so it is immediate and through painless means, opposed to passively, which is often slower, then surely it must be morally permissible. To conclude, in this essay I have show that the passive only view is false, and that active euthanasia is also morally permissible. I explained the passive only view and presented James Rachels argument against it. I then presented a possible objection to that argument, but showed that it fails to defeat Rachels argument against the passive only view, and that therefore both passive and active euthanasia should be viewed as equally morally permissible....