Euthanasia Anthology

• why does Wilcockson say euthanasia should always be a part of medical practice


  this is the only way it can be properly regulated, otherwise society may permit other forms of killing
• what is the current position of the BMA on euthanasia

  - there is a difference between actively terminating life and treating a patient in a manner which may result in death

  - it's a doctors duty to ensure a patient dies with dignity and as little suffering as possible, but active euthanasia should remain illegal
• what does Singer argue about euthanasia

  - Western liberal societies are going through a transitional stage in ethics where the authority of the traditional sanctity of life argument is giving way to the liberal quality of life argument due to secularisation

  - SOL is a more absolute and outdated view. As Christianity, and the idea of life as a gift from God weakens, this view cannot be seriously sustained

  - personal autonomy is key (not being controlled by religious values)

  - however the quality of life argument falls under scrutiny as people who would've once died of conditions now have to live with them
• what's the different between acts and omissions

  - an act is doing something whereas an omission is failing to do something

  - RCC argues there's no distinction between acts and omissions, anything which causes death constitutes murder whatever the intention and you're blameworthy

  - some argue witholding treatment (e.g. to a premature baby) as a form of passive euthanasia is acceptable as an omission but withdrawing treatment is unacceptable as it's an act
• what's the double effect theory

  - there's a difference between forseeing an event and directly intending/willing it to happen, e.g. death = secondary consequence of administering pain relief

  - well-established in natural law and RCC

  - however is there a distinction? forseeing death and failing to act is an omission, and therefore indirect euthanasia which the RCC forbids
• what's the difference between ordinary and extraordinary means


  - ordinary means = things we need to keep us alive normally (e.g. food and water). RCC says to reject these is suicide (a mortal sin)

  - extraordinary means = life prolonging additional medical treatment (e.g. chemotherapy) which patients have the right to refuse according to the BMA and RCC (although some argue this is passive euthanasia and professional negligence)

  - proportion is key to doctor's decisions in patient treatment, they must look at circumstance and weigh up SOL and autonomy
• what is the example Wilcockson uses to illustrate doctor's use of proportion


  - part of a baby's brain is missing, and therefore it may be considered so ill, no amount of suffering would improve their condition significantly and so the baby is only given ordinary means in proportion to their needs, as they'll die shortly

  - have to debate whether use of extraordinary medical means would usefully promote quality of life. Use QALYS and other criteria to decide
• what is the liberal model of law and how may it work in cases of euthanasia

  - law isn't in itself a moral guideline as it's based on majorities preferences, enabling greatest personal autonomy of the greatest number

  - law protects individual; majority cannot exploit minority and there's minimal interference into the law

  - in practice however, many worry about a slippery slope, as what the law permits it encourage to many, so legalising euthanasia may encourage other forms of illicit killing
• what is the status of euthanasia in:

  1. Britain

  2. USA

  3. Australisa

  4. Netherlands

  1. you can, without recrimination, commit suicide but cannot have assistance (1961 Suicide Act), although some argue it's cruel to make someone live just because they cannot commit suicide themselves

  2. movement towards 'proxy empowerment' and living wills for physician assisted suicide (rejected by pro-life movement)

  3. no uniform law, doctor may discontinue life support at patient's request (and this doesn't constitute assisted suicide) and you can refuse extraordinary treatment in advance if incapacitation occurs

  4. euthanasia legalised but only in conflict of duties between doctor's medical ethics and demands of patient. lots of strong criteria which must be followed, e.g. getting advice of second independent doctor
• what are the objections to legalising euthanasia

  - slippery slope: what's permitted as an exception may become norm

  - sanctity of life

  - BMA: legalised euthanasia would damage doctor-patient relationship

  - would bring about fundamentalist shift in how we view the elderly/disabled/ill and old
• what is Helga Kuhse's rejection of the objection to legalising euthanasia


  argues people are scaremongering and it's unlikely that the 'slippery slope' would occur. Disagrees with the use of the Nazi regime to support their argument, as she argues they had racist motivations whereas voluntary euthanasia has a merciful motivation.

  no evidence in Netherlands of it being abused