rae, moral choices: euthanasia 4

8/4/2019 Rae, Moral Choices: Euthanasia 4

1/16

Arguing for autonomy [feedomom external control,

independence]- the law usuallyprotects the rights of the individual in

their private decisions, marriage, family,

child rearing, abortion etc. all reflect

their own values - in the USA this iscalled the right to privacy. This

should be extended to the choice of

when to end ones own life - it is a

private and personal decision - it shouldreflect personal views, especially

relating to a person who is terminally ill

and wants to die.

Wednesday 21 September 2011


2/16

Raes response- you cannot put illegaldrugs into your body or use prostitutes.

If there is a conflict of your rightsagainst those of society- usually society

wins. If we open up to euthanasia then

we can harm others at the end of life -

in Netherlands evidence suggests thatill people are being administered

euthanasia against their will - yet those

advocating PAS/E all agree non

voluntary use is immoral. So arguing forautonomy is in fact harming others -

and so the reality of harm overrides the

right to privacy / personal choice.



3/16

Raes response- you cannot put illegaldrugs into your body or use prostitutes.

If there is a conflict of your rightsagainst those of society- usually society

wins. If we open up to euthanasia then

we can harm others at the end of life -

in Netherlands evidence suggests thatill people are being administered

euthanasia against their will - yet those

advocating PAS/E all agree non

voluntary use is immoral. So arguing forautonomy is in fact harming others -

and so the reality of harm overrides the

right to privacy / personal choice.



4/16

If the right to die is based on personal

autonomy then we should all have it - it

is a universal right of all to choose when

and how we die. Even advocate of PAS/

E say this option should be limited.

The idea of autonomy does not fit into

a Christian worldview-Heb 9:27

-God has appointed the time for each

man to die (Ecc 3:2). God is sovereign

in our life and he has appointed such

moments. In many Western nationsthere has been a long Christian, and

theological, tradition which has held to

this idea of God being sovereign over

death.Wednesday 21 September 2011


5/16

Euthanasia is not a violation f theHippocratic oath- you say that

doctors should respect life and take anoath to protect it - Kevorkian responds

by saying this applies to abortions yet

many are performed each year. Added

to which the Hippocratic oath is nottaken really seriously now in medical

training, and if Hippocrates had known

in his day what we do today he might

have thought differently- now we knowof more people spending long periods

of life in increasingly poor life quality

circumstances.



6/16










circumstances.

Rae responds- if Hippocrates had

known of our ability to manage and

relieve pain he would have seen this as

part of his brief to alleviate suffering

without having to resort to PAS/E.



7/16










circumstances.

Rae responds- if Hippocrates had

known of our ability to manage and

relieve pain he would have seen this as

part of his brief to alleviate suffering

without having to resort to PAS/E.



8/16

Hurricane Katrina and Euthanasia

Critica!y i!patients, too unstable to be moved or transported were

euthanized, that is, put to death. Physicians a!egedly haddiscussions about administering fatal doses of morphine, and then

apparently made the decision to give lethal injections to patients.

They felt it was more compassionate to ki!them rather than leave

them alone and unattended, as temperatures soared over a hundred,

water flooded the hospital, and sanitation systems broke down. It

appeared there was some merit to the a!egations, and Louisianas

attorney general, Charles Foti, ca!ed for a complete investigation ofthe facts surrounding the possible euthanasia of critica!y i!patients

The coroner stated that the bodies of the patients were badly

decomposed, making the causes of their deaths difficult to determine.



9/16

There is no moraly relevant dierencebetween kiling and alowing to die-

whats the difference between turning off

life support and killing someone?

Kevorkian might cite moral philosopher

James Rachels who suggested this

situation:

- A man will inherit a fortune if his nephew

dies

-situation 1 the uncle goes into the

bathroom and drowns the nephew-situation 2 the uncle goes into the

bathroom after the nephew has hit his

head and is lying unconscious under the

waterWednesday 21 September 2011


10/16

In both cases the uncle is equally

responsible for the nephews death -

there is no difference between allowing

the boy to die and actively killing him.

Rachels applies this to the end of life

and says there is no difference between

PAS/E and terminating life support.

Raes response- the action of theuncle is morally outrageous in both

cases - so much so that any fine

distinctions are then overlooked - thisis called thesledgehammer eect,

where essential distinctions are masked

by transferring the idea from one

situation to another.Wednesday 21 September 2011


11/16

More important is the fact that intenthas not been addressed in a moral act.

Rae suggests that it is different to offera gift rather than a bribe - the amount

of money offered might be he same but

it can be offered for vastly different

reasons - it is the intent of the personthat is questioned.

Rachels also talks of two grandchildren

going to visit an elderly sick

grandparent - one goes out of care andconcern, the other to ensure a place in

the will, both do the same thing it is

only their character that is different.



12/16

Rae suggests these are two

fundamentally different acts - one goes

to cheer up a sick old lady, the othersimply for future material gain. The

intent determines the morality of the

actions. What has to be decided is are

actions and intent linked - in whichcase Rachels argument fails - or does

intent not reveal character? Intent has

to mark a moral distinction between

killing and allowing someone to die -the result of actions might be the same

but intent is crucial. PAS/E aims to

cause a patient to die.



13/16

The cause of death also has to be

addressed - is it the underlyingdisease, where removal of

treatment simply allows the

disease to take its course -

palliative care (relieving painwithout acting on the underlying

cause) is provided here to prevent

undue suffering. In PAS/E the

doctors action cause the death ofthe patient. Thus the two actions

are very different.



14/16

Euthanasia does not always involvekiling a person- the distinction is

made between biological(physicalexistence) and biographical life

(events which make life meaningful)- so

a person can be so ill or life so impaired

that in effect life has gone from them,the body is there but the person is gone

- this is applied to unborn, handicapped

and end of life issues. So PAS/E in this

case is not killing a person - and notviolating a command not to kill! In

essence the argument is that

biographical life has ceased to exist.



15/16

Euthanasia does not always involvekiling a person- the distinction is

made between biological(physicalexistence) and biographical life

(events which make life meaningful)- so

a person can be so ill or life so impaired

that in effect life has gone from them,the body is there but the person is gone

- this is applied to unborn, handicapped

and end of life issues. So PAS/E in this

case is not killing a person - and notviolating a command not to kill! In

essence the argument is that

biographical life has ceased to exist.



16/16

Rae responds- biographical life isbased on biological, it presupposes it -both aspects are essential to being a

human being- so personhood is not lostjust because the capacity to exercise anability is lost - losing the function of anarm is not the same as having it

amputated.If biographical life is what gives us valuethen when it is lost we can strip theperson of all rights - start taking their

organs, experiment on them, even burythem?

And following on, surely permissionwould not be needed for PAS/E? It

becomes involuntary.S

rae, moral choices: euthanasia 4

Documents