PP217 Lecture Notes - Lecture 10: Involuntary Euthanasia, Palliative Care, Slippery Slope
Killing vs letting die distinction
James Rachels claims that allowing a defective newborn to 'dehydrate
and wither' without providing an injection that would allow it to die
without suffering is extremely cruel
•
Brock uses a pair of arguments from analogy
The first s meant to show passive euthanasia is killing. Ex: if a
greedy son unplugs his mother against her will, to get her money,
he's actively killing her
○
Second shows withdrawing treatment is morally equivalent to not
starting it. Difference between acting and failing to act (moral cop-
out)
○
•
Meaning of death
Presumably most people do not want to die
•
Utilitarian perspective- death involves the loss of future utility
•
Kantian perspective- death is the ultimate frustration of autonomy
•
Religious grounds- life is intrinsically valuable
•
Arguments on assisted suicide
Arguments in Favor
As Brock points out, there are two main arguments to the effect
euthanasia should be allowed
○
Preventing euthanasia means forcibly preventing people from freely
choosing what to do with their own lives
○
Right to euthanasia seems to follow from the principle of
beneficence
○
Sue Rodriguez's lawyer used this argument; suicide is legal in
Canada, thus able bodied people have a way to end their lives,
while the disabled do not, therefore this is discrimination on the
basis of disability. Supreme court agreed, but concluded that
discrimination was allowable given the states overriding interest in
protecting life
○
1.
Arguments Against
It is wrong to kill an innocent person, Brock has two responses to
this 1) we accept passive euthanasia, 2) the person claims not to
value their future
○
Euthanasia is unnecessary because there are effective pain
medications
○
Suicide is already a legal option, so no need for medical assistance
○
Some object that euthanasia will negatively impact palliative care
○
Euthanasia is incompatible with a doctor's duty. Consequentialist
argument- if doctors kill regularly, it will erode trust in medicine.
Brock says it should increase trust. Deontological version-
preservation of life is at the moral centre of medicine
○
Slippery slope- will lead to involuntary euthanasia (killing
incompetent patients)
○
Slippery slope- lead to non-voluntary euthanasia (surrogate)
○
2.
Causing Death
Saturday, June 30, 2018
10:08 AM
Document Summary
James rachels claims that allowing a defective newborn to "dehydrate and wither" without providing an injection that would allow it to die without suffering is extremely cruel. Brock uses a pair of arguments from analogy. The first s meant to show passive euthanasia is killing. Ex: if a greedy son unplugs his mother against her will, to get her money, he"s actively killing her. Second shows withdrawing treatment is morally equivalent to not starting it. Difference between acting and failing to act (moral cop- out) Presumably most people do not want to die. Utilitarian perspective- death involves the loss of future utility. Kantian perspective- death is the ultimate frustration of autonomy. As brock points out, there are two main arguments to the effect euthanasia should be allowed. Preventing euthanasia means forcibly preventing people from freely choosing what to do with their own lives. Right to euthanasia seems to follow from the principle of beneficence.
