Sanctity of life (SOL)
a religious concept that human life is made in God's image (Genesis 1) and is therefore sacred in value, so shouldn't be ended
Quality of life (QOL)
human life has to possess certain attributes in order to have value, otherwise should be allowed to end it
Abortion
Abortion is the deliberate termination of a foetus during pregnancy
Abortion and SOL
Abortion issue generally depends on whether you think a foetus is a human being or not.
Some Christians believe a foetus is human from conception, with the same rights and value to God as a child who has already been born. Therefore, abortion is murder.
Others believe the foetus is not yet a person, so it's life is not sacred. It is a potential person, but not a person yet. Therefore, abortion might be justified. Â
Religious groups usually oppose abortion on the grounds that it violates the SOL.
Biblical passages suggest that life has been granted by God and is therefore intrinsically valuable
SOL arguments take the following form:
- It is wrong to kill any innocent persons
- an embryo (or foetus) is an innocent person
- It is wrong to kill an embryo (or foetus)
An alternative way of putting it is that embryos and foetus have a right to life
QOL vs SOL
Modern liberal societies increasingly focus on QOL over the traditional often religious SOL.
Singer rejets SOL arguments as absolutists and dependent on an outdated christian view of ethics.
While SOL states that human life is sacred, making any form of killing wrong,
QOL arguments seek to show that in certain circumstances, it is better to end a life
Bible quotes used to argue AGAINST abortion
"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart" Jeremiah 1:5
God has a plan for every human being even before they are born
Before I was born, the LORD chose me and appointed me to be his servant. Isaiah
"You saw me before I was born" Psalm 139:16. "
Roman Catholic church on Abortion
"Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception; abortion and infanticide are the most abominable of crimes."
Second Vatican Council, Encyclical Gaudium et Spes
Abortion is always wrong. Life begins at conception, therefore abortion is murder.
- Unborn child is a sacred human life; it deserves the same respect as any other human being.
- Rape: RC Church does not support abortion - the foetus is paying for someone else's crime.
"Humanae Vitae", 1968: "Human life is sacred".
Pope John Paul II, 1985: "The unborn human being's right to live is one of the inalienable human rights"
"Declaration on Procured Abortion", 1974: Abortion is a serious sin. Everyone, whether Catholic or not, should have a proper respect for human life.
Church of England on Abortion
Abortion is an evil to be avoided if possible, but can be justified in 3 circumstances:
i) Risk to the mother's life or her mental and physical health.
ii) Baby likely to be deformed and mother feels she can not cope.
iii) Rape.
Although the foetus is to be specially respected and protected, nonetheless the life of the foetus is not absolutely sacrosanct if it endangers the life of the mother. Church of England - Board of Social Responsibility Report 1984
CofE DOES NOT MORALLY AGREE with abortion, but often accepts it may be the only way forward for someone.
They do not condemn someone who has an abortion, but would help a woman get through it, come to terms with it, and move forward. Women often feel they have done something very wrong, and need help.
Sometimes abortion is the most loving thing to do. If Jesus forgives people, then so should Christians.
"We affirm that every human life, created in the divine image, is unique... We therefore believe that abortion is an evil... and that abortion on demand would be a very great evil.
"To regard the life of the mother as less valuable than that of the unborn child does not consider her 'right to life' in terms of her wider roles of wife or mother (actual or potential) of other children, as well in terms of her own person." Abortion, an Ethical Discussion, Church information office 1965
non-voluntary euthanasia
a person's life is ended without their consent but with the consent of someone representing their interests e.g. family, used in the case of a patient who is in a persistent vegetative state
physician aided suicide
person dies of own actions but with help from a doctor
physician aid in dying
person's death is hastened by a doctor but not directly caused
1961 suicide act
- no longer a criminal offence but it is still morally illicit
- however, a person who assists suicide will be prosecuted and if it is proved they did it go to prison
- supports autonomy and sanctity of life
euthanasia
- comes from two Greek words
- eu meaning 'good' or 'well'
- found in the word eudamonia which means happiness - second Greek word is thanatos, meaning 'death'
- an act that brings about painless death of a person to end their suffering
euthanasia law
- illegal in most countries, but still takes place
- first legal: Netherlands in 2001 and Belgium in 2002
- in late 20thc, some European made provisions for lenient sentencing and consideration of extenuating circumstances in prosecutions for euthanasia
- important that relatives have some input, but don't control it, to prevent self-interest if they intervened
active euthanasia
acting to deliberately bring about the death of the person e.g. lethal injection or an overdose of medication
passive euthanasia
- failing to prevent ones death when intervention is in the agent's power
- treatment withdrawn or not given e.g. turning off a life-support machine or withdrawing nutrition
assisted suicide
when one dies as a direst result go their own voluntary action, but with help of another person
persistent vegetative state (PVS)
a condition in which a medical patient is completely unresponsive to psychological and physical stimuli and displays no sign of higher brain function, and being kept alive only by medical intervention
voluntary euthanasia
- includes ones wishes to die but physically unable to end their life
- may ask for help from family or doctor to end their suffering
- can also include use of living wills, where one records their desires regarding future medical treatment in circumstances where they are no longer able to express informed consent
voluntary euthanasia - consequentialism
- outcome the judge of good or bad
- acts and omissions important: difference doing something immoral and not doing it
- if a doctor refrains from giving life-saving drugs, he has not killed them but allowed them to die
- this refraining is still an act of helping death
- both doing and not doing are immoral because the patient dies
voluntary euthanasia - weaknesses
- purity of intention: an evil act is an evil act e.g. visiting a relative because you have to and because you want to
- ordinary and extraordinary means: extraordinary; if a person refuses food and water in order to die, they have committed a mortal sin. but if a person refuses surgery it is within their rights because it is more than whats needed for bare existence
- a good person doesn't deserve to be punished for doing a good thing that turned out bad
non-voluntary euthanasia
could be used to show euthanasia is morally wrong as the person making the decision is not the person dying but someone representing them, and we can never be 100% sure that this person accurately represents their wishes - if someone is brain dead, are they alive?
- in the past it was defined by heart beat
- today people can be kept alive like this for ages, but it does not mean they are living
- new definition of death is no brain activity
- hard to diagnose: brain can function at low levels to keep the body alive
Natural Moral Law: euthanasia
- allowing someone to die is okay, cutting short a life is not
- should considers act itself
- we have innate sense of what is right/ wrong
- allow nature to take its course and for death to occur in its own time
- suffering has a special place in God's plan of salvation
- extraordinary treatment is not obligatory if success is not guaranteed, but ordinary is
- social stability: undermine purpose of citizens maintaining laws, and failed its duty of care
- duty to god: breaks divine law
- no refusal of treatment: sick person still needs food and water to sustain life, not necessarily to prolong it
- duty to protect innocent life
- human life has a telos and euthanasia prevents this
Natural Moral Law: euthanasia - doctrine of the double effect
- only applies as a side effect of pain-relieving treatment
- intention must be to help, not kill
- Pope Pius XII: difference between painkillers that have secondary effect of shortening life and drugs used to hasten death with a secondary effect of killing pain
Natural Moral Law: euthanasia - sanctity of life
- set out in Declaration on Euthanasia (1980)
- to euthanise another or to ask for it not allowed
- only self-defence is a reason to kill
- a doctor has a duty to save life, and stop suicide
- however, recognises preparing for death useful, and suffering can be so great it can make a person wish to remove it at any cost
Natural Moral Law - strengths
- universal application for multicultural society, which unites them
- common approach between religions
- values e.g. preservation of life universal
- helps avoid slippery slope
- doctrine of double effect means can be morally permissible to relieve pain knowing that it may cause the patient's death; but it is always wrong to kill for the sake of relieving suffering
Natural Moral Law - weaknesses
- not clear whether you can distinguish between relieving pain knowing that it may cause the patient's death and killing someone for the sake of relieving their suffering which is not according to the doctrine of double effect
- don't always know our intentions e.g. may deceive myself into thinking my intentions are honourable, when they aren't
- religious normative theory: no relevance to the issue of euthanasia, is matter for secular approaches and government laws
- naturalistic fallacy: just because nature is a certain way it doesn't mean this is how things ought to be, and human shouldn't follow a particular course of action just because nature has a certain order and structure
Situation Ethics: euthanasia
- taking of life to show care and love to victim suffering acceptable
- emphasis need for agape when someone is suffering badly
- supported by qol thinkers, but Fletcher rejects it
- served as President of the American Euthanasia Society
- in some cases wrong as it is not most loving thing
- "to justify one, suicide or mercy killing, is to justify the other"
Situation Ethics: euthanasia - pragmatism
- based on experience rather than theory
- adaptable over time to change
- using limited resources to keep a terminally ill patient alive at the cost of others is wrong
Situation Ethics: euthanasia - relativism
- killing innocent people is not always wrong because you have to judge the situation
- life is given to us to use wisely
Situation Ethics: euthanasia - positivism
- person not laws at the centre of issue
- no law that states life must be saved at all costs
- laws and rules are for humane treatment of each other, this might mean allowing someone to die
Situation Ethics: euthanasia - personalism
- respect for autonomy and integrity
- their life may no longer to or value to them: respect this
- humanity is more than biological existence
Situation Ethics: euthanasia - agape
- agape cannot justify assisted suicide of someone with depression
- difference between physical & psychological suffering
- physical suffering is easier to identify
- one's emotional state can change
- those with psychological issues shouldnt be euthanise
- however, agapeistic in the case of a terminally ill patient
Situation Ethics - strengths
- each situation different; fifth proposition says love is the goal (and justifies any means to achieve this), might lead to medical intervention to end a terminally ill patient's life, and in another might lead to medical intervention prolonging terminally ill patient's life
- fourth proposition states love and justice are the same (love is justice which is distributed); justice applies to a terminally ill patient, family and doctor
Situation Ethics - weaknesses
- too complex to just be based on where love is best served
- 1stc biblical concept of agape cannot be applied to decisions about the issue of euthanasia in the 21stc
- subjective and individualistic: no help as question of how love best served might be interpreted differently by a terminally ill patient, members of the family and the doctor
- a religious normative theory, so cannot be applied to euthanasia, as a matter for secular approaches and government laws
- isn't helpful when comes to legislation, as ignores it
- right to break law and help someone die
- morally wrong: may not best serve agape for one and their family
sanctity of life
- life set apart by God: we are created in his image and likeness: we are set apart from everything else (divinity)
- incarnation of jesus: value of human life, or Jesus could and would have come as a sheep.
- life gift from god
- innocent life is to be respected: 'thou shall not murder'
- life is to be loved and protected: parable of good samaritan
Maguire: sanctity of life
- rejects God has power over life and time of death; we belong to God and are his property
- we do intervene to save life and to preserve it
- no real difference between ending life and preserving it so long as the principle of achieving a good dead is adhered to
- should weigh up whats best
- can be legitimised after dying process begun
Singer: sanctity of life
- ones ability to have desires and preferences gives priority to humans, not a soul
- realise that the worth of life varies
- take responsibility for the outcome of your choice
- respect a person's desire to live or die
- only have children if they are wanted
- do not discriminate species
- e.g. severely defective child, compared with a dog, is less valuable
Dworkin: sanctity of life
- wrote Life's Dominion
- life should be preserved, and of high quality
- humans have natural inclination to believe their neighbours' lives shouldn't be taken
- equally, they want them to live a happy and healthy
- affirms eudaimonic qol
- one suffering no longer experiences qol, so no longer flourish, so would be wrong to preserve life at all costs
sanctity of life - weaknesses
- democracy and modern notions of dignity and equality, (Declaration of Human Rights) attempt to affirm all life
- based on outdated practices
- keeping a body alive when brain dead pointless
- ban on taking life ignores science: ability to know when life can be saved and when death is inevitable
sanctity of life - strengths
- doctors who are experts in palliative care find it difficult to predict when death is inevitable
- patients' can recover when least expected
- modern thought makes us think life matters less, compared to ancient times
- many have basic urge to respect all life
- don't need to believe God has given you purpose to believe every life can have meaning and should be respected
quality of life
- killing a person out of love not morally equal to murder; no evil motive, sometimes love
- no one has a duty to endure extreme pain
- life a gift, not a burden: if we are given a gift, we should use it responsibly and dispose of it as we have free will to do
- we are stewards, so we are in control of ending things
quality of life - strengths
- human dignity: if one believes they have low quality of life, this justifies them ending it
- many illnesses may remove ones dignity, can be debilitating and emotionally distressing
- death should be individuals decision
- doctors/ social services can decide whether loss of qol temporary or permanent, could prevent people being euthanized who are temporarily depressed
- supported by Singer
quality of life - weaknesses
- is it allowing doctor to 'play God'
- led to guidelines on DNR orders being changed in 2000 after numbers of healthy patients found they had DNR in their notes without consultation
- subjective and hard to judge, some may want to end their lives as they see themselves as a burden on others
quality of life - utilitarians
- happiness should outweigh unhappiness
- total happiness judgement: if you are happy, longer you live greater your quality. but if you are in pain, it cannot get greater, so it is not worth it.
- average happiness: if high, it is greater. but if it declines permanently, less worth living
- higher qualities: other standards necessary for happiness e.g. memory: if these lacking, no qol
quality of life - personhood
- occurs when a patient is in a PVS
- how do we decide how much consciousness they have?
- patient who has been pronounced 'brain-dead' is no longer a person, but if being kept alive by a life-support machine we would recognise them as human
quality of life - Grisez and Boyle
- stress importance of personhood
- don't accept one in PVS lost what makes them human
- certain basic goods necessary for human well-being e.g. play, recreation: cannot be compared or balanced off each other
- euthanasia attempts to achieve one good, such as freedom and dignity, by putting it in direct conflict with another
- against basic good of life
quality of life - criticisms of personhood
- however, if condition is that they have no reactions and are totally incapable of thought we may no longer consider them a person
- mentally disabled people/ one suffering paralysis may exhibit similar tendencies: are they still considered to be a real person?
quality of life - personal autonomy
- Article 2 of Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, guarantees right to life
- individual owns own body, so has right to decide when and how to die
- state shouldn't enter into this matter
- right to life equates = right to death
- inevitable will be some situations where it is rational to choose a quick death over a slow painful one
quality of life - criticism of personal autonomy
- humans inclined to live
- faulty information/ depression?
- what if a cure is found just after the patient's death?
- what if the request for euthanasia is easier to respond to than providing good palliative care?
- the fact I call this 'my life' doesn't I own it or that I have the right to dispose of it as I will e.g. 'my' uncle
quality of life - Mill: personal autonomy
- liberal principle: humans are the best judge of their own happiness and should be given maximum freedom to live their lives as they see fit, as long as doest cause harm to others
- On Liberty: 'Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.'
quality of life - criticisms of Mill
- how is harm defined?
- if the person is irrational, either too young or mentally ill, is it okay to interfere?
- allows for paternalism, if it is in someone's best interest to over-rule their autonomy
quality of life - Gover
- being alive is not enough for life to be valuable
- killing is not wrong if a person is not conscious
- the body an instrument to enable consciousness
- supports non-voluntary for PVS patients
- but what about people with dementia or brain damage where consciousness is reduced?
Kushe: slippery slope argument
- those who do not request, or are unable, may be euthanised as well as those with terminal illnesses
- legal in Holland: evidence many die unwillingly
- safeguards are difficult
- Kuhse: scaremonger tactic, supporters quote Nazi's, so different as not in support of autonomy or mercy, and in Holland their society has not gone into chaos
Kant
the categorical imperative shows if we don't want killing people universalised we shouldn't accept euthanasia
Situation Ethics: euthanasia - relativism
The area o