James Payne

ETH: PHI 240

Terms to know:

Euthanasia: The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a
terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of
extraordinary medical treatment.

Active euthanasia: The active acceleration of a "good" death by use of drugs etc,
whether by oneself or with the aid of a doctor.

Passive euthanasia: Usually defined as withdrawing medical treatment with the

deliberate intention of causing the death.

The difference between "active" and "passive" is that in active euthanasia, something is
done to end the patient's life; in passive euthanasia, something is not done that would
have preserved the patient's life. Main idea discussed in page 220-224

Back ground
House of Delegates of the American Medical Association on December 4, 1973

The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another -mercy killing - is contrary
to that for which the medical profession stands and is contrary to the policy of the American
Medical Association.

The cessation of the employment of extraordinary means to prolong the life of the body when
there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent is the decision of the patient and/or
his immediate family. The advice and judgment of the physician should be freely available to the
patient and/or his immediate family.

It is not always as simple as it sound because people can make strong cases against this:

Example: man with throat cancer that does not want to go on living because he is in to
much pain (pain relievers no longer ease pain), so he ask to die but if it takes him longer
to die without his medication and he suffers mores

Is this active or passive euthanasia?

 I. Argument
a. Conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death made
on irrelevant grounds.
b. I have argued that killing is not in itself any worse than letting die

II. Reason why the doctrine should be rejected

a. Is the idea that when there is an intestinal blockage, one can “let the baby
die”
b. When there is no such defect there is nothing that can be done, for one
must not “kill”

III. Two cases

a. In the first, Smith stands to gain a large inheritance if anything
should happen to his six-year-old cousin. One evening while the
child is taking his bath, Smith sneaks into the bathroom and
drowns the child, and then arranges things so that it will look like
an accident.
b. In the second, Jones also stands to gain if anything should happen
to his six-year-old cousin. Like Smith. Jones sneaks in planning to
drown the child in Ills bath. However, just as fie enters the
bathroom Jones sees the child slip and hit his head, and fall face
down in the water. Jones is delighted; he stands by, ready to push
the child's head back under if it is necessary, but it is not
necessary. With only a little thrashing about, the child drowns all
by himself, "accidentally," as Jones watches and does nothing.

The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia

I. Argument from Nature

a. Euthanasia is acting against our human nature
b. Every human being has a natural inclination to continue living.
i. Reflexes and responses fit us to fight attackers, flee wild animals,
and dodge out of the way
c. Acting against human nature is denial of our human dignity
d. Man as trustee of his body acts against God
i. Violates the Ten Commandments
ii. *not a strong argument
e. Euthanasia set against human our own nature
 i. Human body and our patterns of behavioral responses make the
continuation of life a natural goal
ii. We eliminate our own instead of reproducing

II. The Argument form self interest

a. Euthanasia is action that works against our own interest because death is a
final and irreversible.
b. We leave no room for m spontaneous recovery which can hinder
learning experiences for doctors and Tec logical advancement
c. The very presence of the possibility of euthanasia may keep us
from surviving when we might

III. The argument from Practical Effects

a. Euthanasia are cases that could have a corrupting influence on
doctors and nurse who are totally committed to saving lives.
b. The quality of health service will go down
i. Serious illness will no longer be one the leading causes of
death instead it would be the less serious illnesses
c. Slippery Slope
i. Hopeless ill may be allowed to take his own life
ii. Then he may be permitted to deputize others to do it for
him if he no longer can act on it, and the ruling of others
becomes the lead factor.

Main Points
*Euthanasia is inherently wrong because it violates the nature and dignity of human
beings. But even those who are not convinced by this must be persuaded that the potential
personal and social dangers inherent in euthanasia are sufficient to forbid our approving it
either as a personal practice or as a public policy.

From Voluntary Active euthanasia

I. The Central Ethical Argument for Voluntary Active Euthanasia
a. The same two fundamental s e
 b. \ethical values that underlie the consensus on a patient’s right to decided
about life-sustaining treatment also support the right to euthanasia
i. Self determination
ii. Well being
c. People often respond to the thought of death with fear of suffering, desire to
retain dignity and control
d. Technology in health care means that for many people, death is/will be
preceded by a long period of physical/mental decline
e. No single objective point at which this decline makes life a burden: thus
need for self-determination
f. Self –interest
g. Best interest to die
i. Quality of life
h. Opponents to Euthanasia
i. Euthanasia is ethically wrong
ii. Euthanasia is ethically permissible but still should not be permitted

II. Would the bad consequence of Euthanasia outweigh the good?

a. Empirical or Factual disagreement
i. Exacerbated by lack of firm data on the issue
b. Moral disagreements about the relative importance of different effects
i. Without specification and especially without explicit procedures for
protecting against well-intentioned misuse and ill-intentioned abuse,
the consequences for policy are largely speculative.

III. Potential Good Consequences of Permitting Euthanasia

a. Respects the self-determination of competent patients
b. Provides reassurance to those who feel they feel might someday want the
option of euthanasia
c. Mercy
d. Relieving pain and suffering

IV. Potential Bad Consequences of Permitting Euthanasia

a. Performing euthanasia is incompatible with the physician role as a healer
i. Would no longer depend on our physician
b. Weaken society commitment to provide optimal care for dying patients
c. Threaten the progress made in securing the rights of patients or the surrogates
to decide about and to refuse life sustaining treatment.
d. Weaken the general prohibition against homicide
e. Slipper slope
 i. voluntary euthanasia is morally permissible, but if we allow it, then
it’s only a matter of time before we allow no voluntary euthanasia,
involuntary euthanasia
ii. Use safeguards in place to prevent descent down the slippery slope
f. Safeguard
i. Patient should be given all relevant information
ii. All reasonable alternatives must be explained
iii. There should be a psychiatric evaluation to rule out depression

V. The role of physician

a. Provides a kind of a social approval
b. Accurately helps counter what would otherwise be unwarranted social
disapproval
c. Protection against mal-practice
d. Inform patients

VI. Conclusion