I. Brock's Main Goal
To
formulate and evaluate the main arguments for and against voluntary
active euthanasia (10).
II. Some Distinctions (10-11)
A
paradigm case of physician-assisted suicide: A competent patient
voluntarily ends her life with a lethal dose of a medication
persistently requested of and eventually provided by a physician for
that purpose.
A
paradigm case of voluntary active euthanasia: A competent patient makes
a voluntary and persistent request to a physician for help in dying.
The physician administers a lethal dose of medication because
the patient cannot do so herself.
A
paradigm case of involuntary active euthanasia: A physician administers
a lethal dose of medication to a competent patient even though she
has refused euthanasia.
A
paradigm case of non-voluntary active euthanasia: A physician
administers a lethal dose of medication to a patient who is not
competent and who is unable to indicate whether she wants euthanasia.
Some commentators use
"passive euthanasia" to refer to withholding or withdrawing
life-sustaining treatment.
III. Main Argument for Voluntary Active Euthanasia (11)
We
believe that it is legitimate for patients to make decisions about
whether to initiate or continue life-sustaining treatment.
The
basis of our judgment that this is legitimate is an appeal to the
goodness of self-determination (autonomy) and well-being.
But
voluntary active euthansia would also promote these values.
So we have significant reason
to be in favor of voluntary active euthanasia.
IV. Objection and Replies
Even
when voluntary active euthanasia would promote a patient's autonomy and
well-being, it is wrong. For it involves the deliberate killing of an
innocent person and such killing is wrong.
Reply:
Withdrawal of treatment is also deliberate killing of an innocent
person. (Greedy son thought experiment.) So either we are mistaken in
concluding that it is morally permissible or deliberately killing an
innocent person can be right.
Reply: Even if withdrawal of
treatment is not deliberate killing of an innocent person, voluntary
active euthanasia might be morally permissible.
For deliberately killing a person when he has waived
his right not to be killed can be morally permissible.
V. Advantages and Disadvantages of Legally Permitting
Voluntary Active Euthanasia
Advantages:
We would respect the
self-determination of those who are competent and want to die,
but cannot under current law.
We would give people
the comfort of knowing that if they find themselves in a situation in
which they would prefer voluntary active euthansia, it would be
available to them.
We would relieve pain
and suffering, both physical and psychological.
Disadvantages:
We would undermine the
fundamental professional and moral committments of physicians. (Disputed
by Brock.)
We would make certain
people worse off by giving them the choice of whether to opt
for euthanasia. (Not seen as particularly serious by Brock.)
We would
fall down a slippery slope to non-voluntary or involuntary active
euthanasia. (Considered as potentially serious, but not conclusive, by Brock.)
Back to
Syllabus