Test 2 Study Guide 9 pages Euthanasia: inducing or opting for someone’s death for their sake • You cannot have any ulterior motive, the only reason for your “killing” of the person is to make them happier • Sometimes euthanasia = letting die, sometimes it is killing • Passive or active: o Passive euthanasia is letting die, that is, you remove something in order for the person to die (i.e. remove artificial breathing, or stop feeding intravenously) o Active euthanasia is “killing”, you do something TO the person in order to make them die (i.e. inject them with poison) • Voluntary, involuntary, non-voluntary o Voluntary: the person asks for you to help them die – it is their choice and at their request o Involuntary: the person does not want to die but you help them die anyway = usually wrong (may or may not be considered euthanasia since it is not necessarily in the person’s interests)  (Rare exceptions where it might be ok): person trapped in car, will die a terrible death you offer to shoot them but they do not want you to – should you? o Non-voluntary: the person is not able to decide whether they would like to die or not (a baby or someone in a coma) • Rachel’s article on euthanasia o Passive euthanasia may be a “worse” (Take longer/more painful) way of dieing than active euthanasia in some cases – thus the letting die v. killing distinction (made by the AMA) is not correct o Jones and Smith example: one man drowns his nephew and gets an inheritance because of that, the other watches his nephew drown (could save him and doesn’t) and also gets an inheritance – both are equally wrong o Since the intention behind both passive and active euthanasia is the same (the method of achieving death just differs) Rachels thinks we should not distinguish between the two • Battin article on euthanasiao Principle of Mercy: one should relieve pain when the person desires this relief and doing so will not violate other obligations we also have a duty not to cause further pain and to end current pain – justifies passive and active euthanasia o Principle of Autonomy: we ought to respect a person’s choice when that does not harm others/violate morals – patient should be able to chose how they are treated by doctors applying principle of mercy o Principle of Justice: resources ought to be used in the most useful way possible for the most people, so supporting a comatose person for many years is wasteful – principle supports euthanasia o Limited paternalism: intervention in someone’s choices for their sake is permissible if that person’s thinking is impaired. Extended paternalism: intervention not only when thinking is impaired but to avoid harm o Battin thinks that it is wrong for doctors to let a patient continue to live even when they are in pain o Life is good because there are good experiences in life, however, when these experiences are no longer present, life is no longer good – life is not intrinsically valuable: it has different value to different people – patient must determine the relative value of life v. pain o Battin supports physician assisted suicide because she says that doctors have as much a duty to help people live as they have a duty to help people die • Gay-Williams article on euthanasia o Euthanasia is wrong because the aim of euthanasia is to take away life and thus cannot be in the person’s interest o Passive euthanasia is not euthanasia because you are letting die and the intention is not death and because the person dies as a result of their injuries/illness o Nature argument: assumption: going against nature is wrong (it is our nature to continue living), conclusion: euthanasia is inherently wrong (its wrong to go against nature)o Self Interest argument: assumption: death is final, euthanasia will corrupt doctors and make them think that patient is better off dead even in cases where they aren’t, thus since the chance of performing in error, euthanasia should not be performed o Euthanasia = slippery slope: easy to go from voluntary to non-voluntary to involuntary • Patients have a right to refuse treatment, physician complying with this wish does not have to aim at patient’s death and thus is not = killing • Rights can be alienable (given up) or inalienable (no exceptions) – can right to life be alienable? • Principles can be absolute (never disobeyed no matter the consequences) or defeasible (one may be excised for or justified in disobeying the principle) – might the principle that killing is wrong be defeasible? • Moral standing: something has moral standing if we have duties to IT, it has value in and of itself • Moral value: something that has value in relation to other things or people, it does not have value in and of itself but rather due to its relation to others Abortion: • Roe v. Wade: 1st trimester abortions: no restrictions, 2nd trimester abortions: for health of mother, post viability abortion: life/health of mother • Abortion: conflict between life of unborn and autonomy/well-being of mother • Hard to reason from analogy because it is a unique problem • Anti-abortion: abortion = killing a human being and thus is wrong, unborn has moral standing AT conception and a right to life and thus abortion is homicide • Pro-choice: o Abortion is a private act (a medical procedure) so it is not something that has moral consequences since it is completely dependant on the person who is getting the abortion’s choice o Moral standing AFTER conception/viabilityo No right to life o Abortion ought to be permitted • Dispute: does unborn have moral standing? Is the unborn a person? Assumption: if the unborn has moral standing, from that point on it is wrong to kill the unborn • Criteria of moral standing: o Ensoulment: something has moral standing if it has a soul  Aquinas: acquires a soul at the end of the first trimester, no soul at conception o Life: if you are genetically human then you have moral standing o Humanity: biological (same as the life criterion?) o “personhood” criteria: rational/language, etc – this last one the elements are gradually acquired not all are present at conception or even birth, so, does POTENTIAL for these elements grant moral standing as well? o Potential personhood: mature humans have moral standing because they have personhood, potential persons will come to have this same