Euthanasia

Active vs. Passive Euthanasia

Active is the doctor (or some other agent) taking part in directly bringing about the death
of the patient.

Passive is a case of letting die.

Two Questions:
1. Is an act of active euthanasia ever morally acceptable?
2. Should society permit acts of active euthanasia in some cases?

James Rachels and the Case For

Rachels’ Argument From Best Interests (p155, RT)

1. If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one’s
rights, then that action is morally acceptable.
2. In at least some cases, active euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone
concerned and violates no one’s rights.
3. Therefore, in at least some cases, active euthanasia is morally acceptable.

The argument from Mercy

Consider Jack-p152, RT.

Mill’s Harm Principle: Activities should be legally prohibited only if they are likely to
harm others without their consent.
1. In at least some cases, acts of active euthanasia do not harm others without their
consent.
2. Therefore, in some cases, given the harm principle, acts of active euthanasia should
not be legally prohibited.

The Libertarian Argument

1. Rational human agents have the right to do what they will with their bodies, provided
they don’t harm others.
2. Active euthanasia, at least sometimes, does not harm others.
3. Therefore, active euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible (and is a right).

This last argument is an appeal to the autonomy of rational agents.

Richard Doerflinger and the Case Against

Argument from Autonomy and Choice Protection

1. Suppose that the protection of liberty is important, as proponents of active euthanasia
claim.
2. It follows that we should then allow the exercising of autonomy and should protect
autonomy.
 3. Now suppose that we allow for active euthanasia.
4. Once an agent kills themselves they loose all future instances of exercising autonomy.
5. But if we allow that, then we have not protected autonomy, but rid ourselves of it.
This contradicts P2.
6. Thus, we should not allow for active euthanasia, because it violates the importance of
autonomy.

On this view suicide is not the ultimate exercise of freedom but its ultimate self-contradiction: A
free act that by destroying life, destroys all the individual’s future earthly freedom . . .In short,
those who seek to maximize free choice may with consistency reject the idea of assisted suicide,
instead facilitating all choices except that one which cuts short all choices. RT 158/9.

Consider also the selling of oneself into slavery.

Slippery Slopes and Loose Cannons

1. The psychological vulnerability of elderly and dying patients.
2. The crisis in health care costs.
3. Legal doctrines on “substituted judgment”.
4. Expanded definition on terminal illness.
5. Prejudice against citizens with disabilities.
6. Character of the medical profession.
7. The human will to power.

Informed Refusal

This is the method of passive euthanasia. The claim is that we have the right to refuse
treatment, even if that means bringing about our death.

Is this any different from active euthanasia? Put differently, is there a relevant difference
between active and passive euthanasia? Should we allow passive instances?

Under what circumstances should one be allowed to refuse treatment?

Cruzan
Bouvia