1 / 10

Ethical Considerations for and against Euthanasia

Ethical Considerations for and against Euthanasia. Dr. Chan Ho Mun Associate Professor Department of Public and Social Administration City University of Hong Kong 26 June 2009. The Value of Human Life. Three Conceptions: Sanctity of Life Inviolability of Life Worthwhileness of Life.

dorcas
Download Presentation

Ethical Considerations for and against Euthanasia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ethical Considerations for and against Euthanasia Dr. Chan Ho Mun Associate Professor Department of Public and Social Administration City University of Hong Kong 26 June 2009

  2. The Value of Human Life Three Conceptions: Sanctity of Life Inviolability of Life Worthwhileness of Life

  3. Sanctity of Life Value of human life is absolute. Life has to be preserved at all cost. Advocates in general would say “no” to death penalty, suicide, abortion, euthanasia, and warfare (pacificism). It is difficult to ascertain the intention of an action and the distinction between intended and foreseen consequences is unclear.

  4. Sanctity of Life They may even regard forging burdensome/futile LST as a form of passive euthanasia.

  5. Inviolability of Life Human life is a basic good, not an absolute good. The value of human life only implies its inviolability which prohibits the intentional killing of an innocent. The English law adopts the inviolability principle. This principle embraces the doctrine of double effect.

  6. Inviolability of Life According to this doctrine, the inviolability principle is not violated by an action which has the foreseeable consequence of shortening a life if the action is performed out of necessity for a good end, the shortening of life is not a means but only a side effect of the action, and the shortening is merely foreseen but unintended. The doctrine has a wide range of applications.

  7. Inviolability of Life The inviolability principle does not require preserving life at all costs. Forgoing LST that is burdensome/futile is not an act of passive euthanasia because it is not performed with an intention to shorten the life of a patient. It only aims to promote his/her best interests and the shortening is merely a side effect. Labeling it as ‘passive euthanasia’ can create a lot of confusions (see Fact Sheet 1).

  8. Worthwhileness of Life The value of a human life depends on whether it is worth while. Not every life is worth living. Some patients would be better off dead and so it is morally right to end their lives intentionally. Voluntary active euthanasia (VAE) is morally justified because it relieves them from unbearable and hopeless suffering.

  9. Worthwhileness of Life Objections: The justification stems from the judgment that the patient’s life is not worth living. It doesn’t really matter whether the request is voluntary. So why not non-voluntary or even involuntary euthanasia for incompetent patients in the same condition? Discrimination – Why is the deprivation of life morally permissible just for this group of patients but not others?

  10. Worthwhileness of Life Replies to Objections: There is no discrimination if these patients choose to die voluntarily. On the contrary, not allowing them to die is discriminatory because their special conditions have not been duly considered.

More Related