Student ID: 429035

PHIL 233 - Bioethics

Charlie Kurth
January 30, 2017
SW1: Analyzing Singers Is the Sanctity of Life Ethic Terminally Ill?
Rapid advances in medical technology have driven perseverance and motive to extend the
average human lifespan. However, this drive and willingness to extend life has arisen conflict in defining
the value of life itself. In his work Is the Sanctity of Life Ethic Terminally Ill?, Peter Singer claims that our
very technology aiming to maintain life, has brought the sanctity of life ethic to the point of collapse
(Singer 327). His central claim states that this technical capacity has brought implications that we cannot
accept, and he encourages the importance of quality of life over sanctity of life. By redefining the worth
of human life, Singer works to more succinctly answer when a human dies, when it is permissible for
doctors to end the life of a patient, and then further remove organs for transplantations.
In order to analyze Singers main claim more precisely, we must acknowledge the sub-claims of
his argument. These sub-claims are as follows: the implications of moving to death of the whole brain,
permissibility of intentional death by doctor, and the permissibility of organ harvesting. In order to
address these claims, we must define the key terms of Singers arguments. A definition or ethical
argument, Singer argues, is the susceptibility of how we define brain death. The legal definition of brain
death currently states as the irreversible cessation of all functions of the brain. However, Singer criticizes
this as unstable. Medical advances have indicated that functions of the brain continue even after
considered brain dead, and these patients are not considered dead. Singer states that permanent
damage to the parts of the brain responsible for consciousness can also mean that a patient is in a
persistent vegetative state (333), however, these patients are not considered dead. Therefore, is life
consciousness is valued more than life itself, then bringing legal definition into line with medical practice
should suffice.
The most central counter-argument to Singers work is from The Ad Hoc Committee of the
Harvard Medical School, defining an irreversible coma to be new criterion for death. The purpose for this

definition is to place the burden on families, hospitals, and patients who are on life support. The previous
obsolete criteria for the definition of death, such as the heart and lung definition, leads to controversy
especially in regards to doctors rights in obtaining and transplanting the patients organs. However,
Singer raises significant issues from the Harvard Committee, claiming that the irreversible coma is by no
means equivalent to the death of the whole brain. Although the committees position is widely accepted
for the criteria for death, he acknowledges that we still differentiate those that are dead, and those that are
brain-dead because he argues that people have enough common sense to see that the brain dead are not
really dead (333). This claim serves to support his argument, dismissing the Harvard report as simply
convenient fiction. Singer wants to begin defining brain death with a different approach, breaking away
from the belief that human life has equal value.
Singer discusses the dissolve of life sanctity from the significance of the Anthony Bland case,
reviewed by the British House of Lords. Singer argues that Britains high court dismissed centuries of
traditional law and medical ethics regarding the value of life. The Bland decision openly embraces the
idea of a worthless life, supporting Singers argument by abandoning the concept that life itself is a
benefit to the person, regardless of the quality of life. It accepts intention to bring death to the patient.
This case supports Singer by demonstrating how law and ethics have separated. However, this case only
requires acceptance of quality over sanctity of life ethical dilemma. Therefore, we ought to return to the
traditional concept of death as cessation of blood circulation.
Singers work is significant because it begs to challenge the instability of the widely accepted
brain death definition. Singer presents a sound argument for emphasizing the quality of life over the
sanctity of life, by emphasizing the preservation of a life, but only a life worth living (327). By
redefining this preservation tactic, Singer strives to answer when it is acceptable to end a patients life.
Therefore, his work is important not only to expedite organ transplantation but it encourages us to keep
challenging conclusions even if widely accepted.