Sanctity of Life

Euthanasia

Content

Key ideas, including:
- sanctity of life
- quality of life
- voluntary euthanasia
- non-voluntary euthanasia

Key Knowledge

the religious origins of this concept (that human life is made in God’s image and is therefore sacred in value)
the secular origins of this significant concept (that human life has to possess certain attributes in order to have value)
what it is (that a person’s life is ended at their request or with their consent) and its use in the case of incurable or terminal illness
what it is (that a person’s life is ended without their consent but with the consent of someone representing their interests) and its use in the case of a patient who is in a persistent vegetative state

Euthanasia: CV

What is voluntary euthanasia?

Should we have the ability to control our own destinies, by being offered assistance to take our own lives when we judge that the quality of our lives has deteriorated to the point at which they are no longer worth living?
Euthanasia is a criminal offence in virtually all countries, and it’s strongly opposed by most governments and religious organisations.
In Holland, about a thousand assisted deaths take place each year.
‘I will not prescribe a deadly drug to please someone, nor give advice that may cause his death.’ Hippocrates
Physicians are ‘not only to restore the health, but to mitigate pain …; and not only when mitigation may conduce to recovery, but when it may serve to make a fair and easy passage.’ Francis Bacon

Peter Singer on Voluntary Euthanasia

Given the presence of appropriate legal safeguards, there are no paternalistic reasons that justify denying voluntarily euthanasia. VOLUNTARY euthanasia is understood to be active euthanasia following the consent of the person killed. A PERSON is a self-conscious, rational agent.

Only persons have rights (and only persons can generate the principle of respect for autonomy). To have a right "one must have the ability to desire that to which one has a right.

First key principle of the argument: Persons can waive their rights "if one so chooses.”

Second key principle of the argument: If we endorse the principle of respect for autonomy, we will assist others to do as they choose.

Given these two key principles, a rational person with "an irreversible condition causing protracted physical or mental suffering" who chooses to waive the right to life should be assisted in ending his or her life.

Although killing a person is normally wrong, and worse than killing "any other kind of being" (e.g. killing a mosquito, which is not self-conscious), in the case of persons it is worse to deny voluntary euthanasia than to provide it.

To prohibit voluntary euthanasia is to promote less happiness, for it promotes the continued suffering of a self-conscious being who desires to end that suffering but knows that it will continue (and who therefore suffers the added burden of fearing continued suffering).

He considers and rejects three problems with permitting voluntary euthanasia

1. We can't be "sure" that it was voluntary. (Perhaps the doctor is murdering the patient and merely saying that it was voluntary, or greedy relatives are putting pressure on them.) Singer's response is to put safeguards in place, as we do with virtually every other policy we adopt.

2. There will be a small number of mistakes, cases where it would have been better NOT to perform euthanasia. Singer's response is that, if we are concerned about the small number of harms that will occur in our pursuit of a large number of goods, then we must also reduce the speed limit, etc. With the speed limit, we accept the small number of harms for the greater good. So also with voluntary euthanasia.

3. Are we giving too much weight to individual freedom? What next, legalize heroin use? Singer's response is that we must respect autonomy when the choice can be rationally based. Narcotics addiction is a bad candidate for something undertaken through rational choice.

So there are SOME things a utilitarian will prohibit. It just isn't clear that voluntary euthanasia is a candidate for something we must prohibit.

Arguments for Voluntary Euthanasia

Voluntary euthanasia is not murder, as killing humans who don’t want to live isn’t wrong.
It shows mercy to those suffering with intolerable pain from an incurable disease.
It gives people autonomy – the right to choose their destiny, including how they live and die.
Voluntary euthanasia should be an option for a competent adult who is able and willing to make such a decision.
Euthanasia goes on already, in an uncontrolled and therefore unsafe way.
It allows human beings to live dignified lives – the ends of their lives should be dignified.

Arguments against Voluntary Euthanasia

Life is a sacred gift from God, and humans are called upon to preserve it and make it fruitful.
Killing is forbidden in the Hebrew Scriptures.
For Christians, suffering has a special place in God’s plan, because Jesus died in pain on the Cross, and human suffering can have meaning in the context of a life lived in faith.
Motives may be questionable – we may ask in moments of desperation, or out of misplaced fears of the future.
Mistakes can be made through faulty diagnosis.
The system might be subject to abuse in the case of elderly relatives.
Euthanasia can have a negative impact on the community by reducing the importance of the care of patients who are dying, or be preventing people from going to hospital for fear of the possible consequences.
Acceptance of practice of killing in hospitals could reduce the respect for life that civilizations uphold.

Euthanasia: Text

Euthanasia

What is voluntary euthanasia?

Should we have the ability to control our own destinies, by being offered assistance to take our own lives when we judge that the quality of our lives has deteriorated to the point at which they are no longer worth living?

Euthanasia is a criminal offence in virtually all countries, and it’s strongly opposed by most governments and religious organisations.

In Holland, about a thousand assisted deaths take place each year.

‘I will not prescribe a deadly drug to please someone, nor give advice that may cause his death.’ Hippocrates

Physicians are ‘not only to restore the health, but to mitigate pain …; and not only when mitigation may conduce to recovery, but when it may serve to make a fair and easy passage.’ Francis Bacon

​

Peter Singer on Voluntary Euthanasia

Given the presence of appropriate legal safeguards, there are no paternalistic reasons that justify denying voluntarily euthanasia. VOLUNTARY euthanasia is understood to be active euthanasia following the consent of the person killed. A PERSON is a self-conscious, rational agent.

​

Only persons have rights (and only persons can generate the principle of respect for autonomy). To have a right "one must have the ability to desire that to which one has a right.

First key principle of the argument: Persons can waive their rights "if one so chooses.”

​

Second key principle of the argument: If we endorse the principle of respect for autonomy, we will assist others to do as they choose.

​

Given these two key principles, a rational person with "an irreversible condition causing protracted physical or mental suffering" who chooses to waive the right to life should be assisted in ending his or her life.

​

Although killing a person is normally wrong, and worse than killing "any other kind of being" (e.g. killing a mosquito, which is not self-conscious), in the case of persons it is worse to deny voluntary euthanasia than to provide it.

​

To prohibit voluntary euthanasia is to promote less happiness, for it promotes the continued suffering of a self-conscious being who desires to end that suffering but knows that it will continue (and who therefore suffers the added burden of fearing continued suffering).

​

He considers and rejects three problems with permitting voluntary euthanasia

1. We can't be "sure" that it was voluntary. (Perhaps the doctor is murdering the patient and merely saying that it was voluntary, or greedy relatives are putting pressure on them.) Singer's response is to put safeguards in place, as we do with virtually every other policy we adopt.

3. Are we giving too much weight to individual freedom? What next, legalize heroin use? Singer's response is that we must respect autonomy when the choice can be rationally based. Narcotics addiction is a bad candidate for something undertaken through rational choice.

​

So there are SOME things a utilitarian will prohibit. It just isn't clear that voluntary euthanasia is a candidate for something we must prohibit.

​

Arguments for Voluntary Euthanasia

Voluntary euthanasia is not murder, as killing humans who don’t want to live isn’t wrong.

It shows mercy to those suffering with intolerable pain from an incurable disease.

It gives people autonomy – the right to choose their destiny, including how they live and die.

Voluntary euthanasia should be an option for a competent adult who is able and willing to make such a decision.

Euthanasia goes on already, in an uncontrolled and therefore unsafe way.

It allows human beings to live dignified lives – the ends of their lives should be dignified.

​

Arguments against Voluntary Euthanasia

Life is a sacred gift from God, and humans are called upon to preserve it and make it fruitful.

Killing is forbidden in the Hebrew Scriptures.

For Christians, suffering has a special place in God’s plan, because Jesus died in pain on the Cross, and human suffering can have meaning in the context of a life lived in faith.

Motives may be questionable – we may ask in moments of desperation, or out of misplaced fears of the future.

Mistakes can be made through faulty diagnosis.

The system might be subject to abuse in the case of elderly relatives.

Euthanasia can have a negative impact on the community by reducing the importance of the care of patients who are dying, or be preventing people from going to hospital for fear of the possible consequences.

Acceptance of practice of killing in hospitals could reduce the respect for life that civilizations uphold.