1. Voluntary euthanasia is always morally acceptable.’ Discuss.
INTRO: Euthanasia is the Greek word for a 'good death', more recently labelled mercy
killing. many types include active, passive, voluntary, and involuntary. active
euthanasia is when someone does something to bring about the end of someone's life
whereas voluntary euthanasia is where a person’s life is ended at their own choice in
order to relieve suffering. at the moment, this is illegal as part of the Suicide act in
1961 in the UK but it is legal in Switzerland and Holland where many people go.
Scholars such as fletcher and Singer would argue it can be morally acceptable
because it helps those who may not have a good quality of life and it is the most
loving thing. however, the church will disagree because by allowing someone to die
when they want to, it would be playing God. this means that, it can be argued that
voluntary euthanasia is morally acceptable as someone should have the autonomy to
decide for themselves if their life is worth living or not.
PARA 1: a person should have complete autonomy over their decision to die because
a lot of people have personhood
being a human does not make you a person according to Peter Singer. a person
is defined as someone who is part of our community and who deserves moral
consideration. there is a criterion that we use to associate with persons. this
includes being rational, self-aware, having moral awareness, and having
autonomy.
this would mean that if we weren't allowed to choose when and how we die then
we wouldn't be considered persons or have moral considerations.
another reason we should have autonomy is that we expect to have a good
quality of life and it is only valuable if life is worth living. if a person has a bad
quality of life and no longer wants to live as they are in pain, their decision
should be respected.
Mary Warnock argues people who feel they have lost their sense of dignity and
wish to die should be allowed.
(-) sanctity of life may be more favoured by traditional roman Catholics as life is
sacred. they argue that life is a gift from God and only he is the lord of death
("God gives life and God takes life away"). therefore, human beings have no
authority to take an innocent life. in this instance, euthanasia is an intrinsic evil
, even though many Christians believe that life is a gift from God so it should be
protected, human beings have the right to make decisions for themselves so
they should have autonomy over how they die.
PARA 2: voluntary euthanasia is acceptable because ending suffering may be the
most loving thing to do.
fletcher, the founder of Situation Ethics served as the president of the
Euthanasia Society of America from 1974-to 1976. his theory argues that if
letting someone make the choice to end their life is the most loving thing, then
it is morally right.
it used agape, which is the "disinterested but compassionate concern for one's
neighbour", to determine what is right, which might be turning off a life support
machine so a person's suffering is ended, this applies to when they have a do
not resuscitate order
situation ethics follows the principles of pragmatism, personalism, positivism,
and relativism.
personalism puts people above the law so agape can be fully achieved without
laws getting in the way.
positivism allows the practice of euthanasia because in some cases, people are
making the choice to follow their faith, and in this case, it may be the most
loving thing to help someone end their life
relativism is the most important principle as the patient's medical condition has
to be the starting point for any decision. this recognises there are cases where
euthanasia is the right option
another supporting factor for euthanasia is the six principles that seek to fulfil
agape. the fifth principle "only the end justifies the means" supports euthanasia
because if death is what the patient wants, it becomes moral.
an example to support this would be Tony Nicklinson. he had locked-in
syndrome and wanted to die, but he was refused because of the suicide act.
however, situation ethics would allow this death.
(-) although situation ethics support situation ethics in some ways, the idea of
agape is too much to aspire to and can get polluted by selfish tendency. people
might pressure older relatives into deciding they want to die because they may
be a burden, or they may be selfish enough to want their money.
, this would make a strong argument against having autonomy although, there
could be a very little chance overall that people will believe any instance of
voluntary euthanasia is accepted so may become selfish.
PARA 3: voluntary euthanasia will always be morally wrong because it goes against an
ordered society.
natural law opposes euthanasia, for a myriad of reasons. it is focused on the
primary precepts to workshop god, live in an ordered society, reproduce, to
learn, and to preserve life--euthanasia goes against a lot of these precepts
the secondary precepts would argue euthanasia is wrong because it goes
against the precepts of defending the innocent and not killing.
natural law upholds the sanctity of life and anything to take life away is wrong
as only God can take a life.
it can also be argued euthanasia would undermine the stability of society, as a
society, where life is not valued, would not be an ordered one. this is because
people may fear hospital treatment because they fear that their doctors will
pressure them into dying.
to end a life with euthanasia instead of preserving life would be an apparent
good as opposed to really good.
(-) natural law seems to contradict itself. the primary precept doesn't allow
euthanasia as it actively kills a person but the doctrine of double effect allows it.
if a doctor gives pain relief like morphine, even though they knew it would
shorten life, it would be allowed. it is acceptable if it has the intention to relieve
pain and shortening life is an unintended secondary effect. if a doctor could still
shorten a life this way, it would make sense to allow people to have autonomy
over their own deaths if that is what they wanted to ease the pain.
PARA 4: voluntary euthanasia is morally unacceptable in contemporary society, where
there is modern medicine to eradicate pain.
a hospice is where people with a terminal illness go to be treated until they die.
the hospice was founded by Dame Cicely Saunders who believed that death is
not the end of life but a stage in the process so no one should be afraid.
they disagree with euthanasia because people require time to reflect on their
life and the importance of relationships and if they decide to die, then they are
, ignoring everyone else around them who may have helped including the nurses
and doctors as the act is public.
therefore, people should not have autonomy over their deaths because the
hospices are there to relieve any pain that would decrease their quality of life so
there is no reason to end it early. also, this would be considered to be playing
God.
(-) this can be considered a weak argument because there is no point in helping
those who do not want to be saved. the health care resources at hand to
support patients are wasted on those who don't want them, yet they could be
used to treat more people who want to be treated.
an example of this is the use of extraordinary means. these are expensive and
an individual not want to have them if it won’t suddenly save them
2. To what extent should a person have complete autonomy in medical decision-
making?
INTRO: Euthanasia is the Greek word for a 'good death', more recently labelled mercy
killing. many types include active, passive, voluntary, and involuntary. active
euthanasia is when someone does something to bring about the end of someone's life
whereas passive euthanasia is when someone withholds or withdraws treatment
which indirectly causes their death. currently, in the UK, voluntary euthanasia and
assisted suicide are illegal under the 1961 suicide act that legalized suicide. many
people argue that we should have autonomy over our own medical decision-making,
including Fletcher and Peter Singer. autonomy is often defined as having self-directing
freedom and moral independence over one's life. others, including the roman catholic
church and Dame Cicely Saunders, believe we shouldn't have this autonomy as
people should not be able to choose when they die because it goes against God's
wishes. it can be argued that a person should be able to have full autonomy over their
medical decisions because if we have a moral responsibility for our actions so that
should extend to our deaths
PARA 1: a person should have complete autonomy over their decisions because a lot
of people have personhood
being a human does not make you a person according to Peter Singer. a person
is defined as someone who is part of our community and who deserves moral
