RELG 2650 (FINAL)Exam Questions
With Complete Solutions
The Medicalization of Death
20th century trend toward dying in medical environment rather than at home; caused by
increased technology and hope for cures
Sachedina
Islamic approaches to death: life and death are in God's hands, human ignorance
denies the inevitability of death and tries to master it, death is a return to God through
the promise of resurrection, so it should not be feared
Griffiths
Christian approaches to death: dual elements of lament and joy; lament in that death is
repugnant, joy in that it is a return to God (failure to recognize lament can lead to lack of
appreciation, failure to recognize joy can lead to painful therapies)- failure to embrace
both leads to faulty belief in mastery over life
Sulmasy
Difference between killing and allowing to die- intention is key in determining
Killing
Creating a new lethal state with the specific intention in acting of thereby causing a
person’s death
Allowing to die
Performing an act of removing intervention that forestalls or ameliorates a pre-existing
fatal condition, or refraining from such an action either with the specific intention of
causing a person's death, or without that intention
Double effect
Some actions result in both a good and bad outcome; can still be done if the aim is to
accomplish the good one while the bad outcome is merely foreseen but not intended
, (ex. self defense: intention is to protect oneself, foreseen side effect is death of
assailant)
Four conditions of double effect
Act, intention, means/ends, proportionality
Act
The moral object of the act must be good or at least indifferent
Intention
One cannot intend the bad side-effect (it's called double effect because there is a good
and bad effect), only foresee it
Means versus ends
Bad effects cannot be the means to a good outcome, both effects must be at least
simultaneous
Proportionality
Bad effects must be proportional to the good outcome
Objections to double effect
1. Difficulty of analyzing intentions
2. Different understanding of action
3. Religious origin
Limiting treatment in Islam
Many life sustaining treatments merely delay an inevitable death, so removing treatment
does not kill them (disease, rather than patient or doctor, is the cause of death)-should
be a collective decision
Limiting treatment in Christianity
Ordinary treatments are required, extraordinary treatments are not required, but can be
pursued
Ordinary treatments
things that can be obtained and used without great difficulty- sufficient clothing,
necessary recreation, and reasonably available medicine
Extraordinary treatments
Things involving excessive physical pain, repugnance at treatment, expense/burden, no
reasonable hope of benefit
With Complete Solutions
The Medicalization of Death
20th century trend toward dying in medical environment rather than at home; caused by
increased technology and hope for cures
Sachedina
Islamic approaches to death: life and death are in God's hands, human ignorance
denies the inevitability of death and tries to master it, death is a return to God through
the promise of resurrection, so it should not be feared
Griffiths
Christian approaches to death: dual elements of lament and joy; lament in that death is
repugnant, joy in that it is a return to God (failure to recognize lament can lead to lack of
appreciation, failure to recognize joy can lead to painful therapies)- failure to embrace
both leads to faulty belief in mastery over life
Sulmasy
Difference between killing and allowing to die- intention is key in determining
Killing
Creating a new lethal state with the specific intention in acting of thereby causing a
person’s death
Allowing to die
Performing an act of removing intervention that forestalls or ameliorates a pre-existing
fatal condition, or refraining from such an action either with the specific intention of
causing a person's death, or without that intention
Double effect
Some actions result in both a good and bad outcome; can still be done if the aim is to
accomplish the good one while the bad outcome is merely foreseen but not intended
, (ex. self defense: intention is to protect oneself, foreseen side effect is death of
assailant)
Four conditions of double effect
Act, intention, means/ends, proportionality
Act
The moral object of the act must be good or at least indifferent
Intention
One cannot intend the bad side-effect (it's called double effect because there is a good
and bad effect), only foresee it
Means versus ends
Bad effects cannot be the means to a good outcome, both effects must be at least
simultaneous
Proportionality
Bad effects must be proportional to the good outcome
Objections to double effect
1. Difficulty of analyzing intentions
2. Different understanding of action
3. Religious origin
Limiting treatment in Islam
Many life sustaining treatments merely delay an inevitable death, so removing treatment
does not kill them (disease, rather than patient or doctor, is the cause of death)-should
be a collective decision
Limiting treatment in Christianity
Ordinary treatments are required, extraordinary treatments are not required, but can be
pursued
Ordinary treatments
things that can be obtained and used without great difficulty- sufficient clothing,
necessary recreation, and reasonably available medicine
Extraordinary treatments
Things involving excessive physical pain, repugnance at treatment, expense/burden, no
reasonable hope of benefit
