Bioethics Euthanasia

8/3/2019 Bioethics Euthanasia

1/17


2/17

BY: BSN-II

AQUINOCO

UMILIN


3/17

Means easy death

From the Greek word

eu-easy and thanatos-death

More strictly, it means painless, peaceful death

It is the deliberate putting to death, in an easy,

painless way, of an individual suffering from anincurable and agonizing disease.

Popularly known as mercy killing

Some call it the art or practice of painlessly putting

to death a person suffering from a marked

deformity or from an unbearable and distressing

disease.

Means easy death

From the Greek word

eu-easy and thanatos-death

More strictly, it means painless, peaceful death

It is the deliberate putting to death, in an easy,

painless way, of an individual suffering from anincurable and agonizing disease.

Popularly known as mercy killing

Some call it the art or practice of painlessly putting

to death a person suffering from a marked

deformity or from an unbearable and distressing

disease.


4/17

- it may be either active (positive) euthanasia, which

in a terminally ill patient will deliberately, directly

terminate his life by employing painless methods-it isan act of commission insofar as it is voluntary and

deliberate

- or passive (negative) euthanasia, which one allows

oneself to die without taking any medicine or by

refusing medical treatment.-it is an act of omission

insofar as one simply refuses to take anything to

sustain life.


5/17

Active and voluntary euthanasia- is one in which either a physician,spouse, or a friend of the patient will terminate the life upon his

request.

Passive and Voluntary euthanasia- one in which a terminally ill patient

is simply allowed to die by the physician, spouse or an immediate

relative, upon the patients request.

Active and nonvoluntary euthanasia- occurs when it is the physician,

spouse or relative, who decides that the life of the terminally ill patient

should be terminated.

Passive and nonvoluntary euthanasia- one in which a terminally ill

patient is simply allowed to die, as requested by the immediate family

members.


6/17

The Problem of Human Dignity

The moral issue of euthanasia revolves around the

preservation of human dignity in death even to the

individuals last breath.

It states that euthanasia aims to preserve human dignity

until death, not only does one have a duty to preserve life,

but has also the duty to die with dignity.

To die with dignity means that one should be able to make

the decision to die when dying would be better than to go

on living with an incurable and distressing sickness.


7/17

The negative side, declares thateuthanasia erodes human dignity.

This is the crossroads of a moral issue:

1) Whereas the positive side insists thatmercy killing preserves human dignity

2) The negative side claims the opposite

since this acts hastens the death of anindividual.


8/17

T. Gary Williams

1. Considers euthanasia to be morally wrong, firstly

because it is an intentional killing and opposes thenatural moral law, or the natural inclination to preservelife.

2. Secondly, euthanasia may be performed for purposes of

self-interest or other consequences. A mistaken diagnosis is always possible, but one may

justify such mistakes through mercy killing once it isconsidered a legitimate practice.


9/17

Recovery from a serious illness requiresthat we fight for our life, so the very

possibility of euthanasia may keep us from

doing just that (Williams calls this the

argument from self-interest).

3. Thirdly, doctors and other health care

professionals may be tempted not to do their

best to save the patient; they may resort to

euthanasia as an easy way out and simplydisregard any other alternatives.


10/17

James Rachel, opts for euthanasia, believing it to be humane

insofar as it allows suffering to be brought to a speedy end.

In his view, whether killing of any kind is right or wrong depends

on the motives and circumstances under which it takes place.

If the intentions and situations are of a certain kind, then active

euthanasia can be deemed morally right.

Similarly, if you simply allow a patient to die when you have some

motive in mind, your act is omission (passive euthanasia)

becomes morally reprehensible.

For Rachel's, both cases (active and passive euthanasia) your

evil intentions have rendered your decisions or actions morally

wrong.


11/17

Philippa Foot endorses both active and passiveeuthanasia, in which patient explicitly gives

consent.

In her view, everyone has the right to life; hence it

is what a person wants that counts.

It is only when a person has decided after battling

some incurable disease, that life is no longer

worth living that both active and passive voluntary

euthanasia can be endorsed and regarded aslegitimate and justified.


12/17

Richard Brandt applies Rosss notion of prima

facie duty not to injure others in his analysis of

the issue.

If someone is in an irreversible coma, all types

of diagnoses have been made to confirm the

hopelessness of the case, the patient is

considered to be beyond injury.

In such a situation, if instructions have been left

for the patients life to be ended painlessly, it

becomes our prima facie obligation to do so

(active and voluntary euthanasia).

Not to follow such a wish would be remiss in

our prima facie obligation to keep others from

further harm or more pain.


13/17

Natural law ethics condemns mercy killing. Euthanasia

is intrinsically wrong because it implies the direct,

deliberate killing of an individual- hence it is murder.

Even though the motive is good, the good does notjustify the evil means in this case. The principle of

stewardship and the inviolability of life may be

appealed to in this connection.

The principle of double effect may be legitimate under

certain circumstances.


14/17

There is no moral obligation to continue medical

treatment if and when a terminally ill patientbecomes hopeless. Even if ones life might be

lengthened through extraordinary measures which

are already useless anyway, it is legitimate to allow

the patient to die as a result of his/her own illness or

injury.

Kants ethics speaks of the human dignity of an

autonomous rational being. As such, we have a

bounden duty to preserve life. Furthermore, a

terminally ill patient in a vegetative state is no

longer an autonomous person with a self-regulatingwill. Hence, by Kantian principles, our duty to

preserve life no longer holds.


15/17

Depending upon how one interprets the utilitarian

principle of utility, it seems that its formulation about the

greatest happiness and benefits for the greatest numberof persons may render euthanasia legitimate.

The Pragmatic Theory of the good and the truth seems

to justify euthanasia in general. It can be argued that

when an individual has been in agony for a long time,and it has become unbearable to go on living in misery

and pain, the most pragmatic moral decision to make is

to put such a useless life to end.

In the light ofRosss ethical principles, under certainconditions or circumstances, one may find it a stringent

prima facie duty to put a comatose patient to an easy

death, depending upon a good motive-e.g. to put an end

to the prolonged suffering of the patient.


16/17

Rawls concept of justice, argues that no

amount of social good or welfare can overridethe inviolability of the individual, it appears as

if euthanasia would be illicit or unacceptable.

However, a persons inviolability demandsthat his dignity be preserved and justice be

served if and when his death would be as

painless and nonviolent as possible.

To let him live and suffer needless pain and

agony would be doing him more injustice

than justice, more harm than good.


17/17

THE END

Documents

Bioethics Euthanasia