Chapter 10 Questions
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Montgomery College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
140
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by MateWildcat2938
1.
What is euthanasia? What is physician- assisted suicide? What is the difference
between voluntary euthanasia and nonvoluntary euthanasia? What is the
difference between active and passive euthanasia? (p. 286)
According to the textbook “Euthanasia is directly or indirectly bringing about the
death of another person for that person’s sake.” (Vaughn, 2019, p. 264) Additionally the
textbook states “physician-assisted suicide—the killing of a person by the person’s own
hand with the help of a physician.” (Vaughn, 2019, p.265) There are many types of
euthanasia, for example voluntary and non-voluntary.
According to the textbook voluntary euthanasia is when “the patient requests or
agrees to the act. She may make the request in person or leave instructions to be followed
in case she becomes incapacitated” (Vaughn, 2019, p.264). However, nonvoluntary
euthanasia is when “others besides the patient (family or physicians, for example) choose
euthanasia for her because she is not competent (due to illness or injury) and has left no
instructions regarding her end-of-life preferences.” (Vaughn, 2019, p.264) Simply put
voluntary you make the decision and nonvoluntary others make the decision for you. In
addition to voluntary and nonvoluntary there is active and passive euthanasia. Active
euthanasia “a is taking a direct action to kill someone, to carry out a “mercy killing.””
(Vaughn, 2019, p.265) Passive euthanasia “a is allowing someone to die by not doing something—by
withholding or withdrawing measures necessary for sustaining life” (Vaughn, 2019,
p.265). In simple terms active euthanasia is performing an action that will kill the person
while passive is not doing anything, but it still results in the death of the person. 2.
What is the higher-brain definition of death? What is an advanced directive?
What is the American Medical Association’s official view of physician- assisted
suicide? Do you agree, why or why not?
The higher-brain definition of death says, “
that an individual is dead when
higher brain functions— those that give rise to consciousness—permanently stop.”
(Vaughn, 2019, p.267) There are legal documents to deal with problems such as higher-
brain definition of death when no one knows how to move forward. It is called advanced
directive which are legal documents that allow people to state what medical treatments
they want or do not want if they are unable to make decisions or communicate because of
severe illness or injury.
According to the textbook “The official position of the American Medical
Association (AMA), the main professional group for American physicians, is that
“Physician assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as
healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal
risks”” (Vaughn, 2019, p.265). I do not agree with this viewpoint as the statement
contains value judgments such as "fundamentally incompatible" and "serious societal
risks.” Their judgments are subjective and not universally applicable. Additionally, their
statement does not acknowledge that there are diverse perspectives within the medical
community and society at large on this issue. Also, being a healer does not mean
extending life, it can also mean respecting a patient’s autonomy. 3.
Do you think voluntary active euthanasia is morally permissible in some cases?
Why or why not?
I do think voluntary active euthanasia is morally permissible in some cases because no
one should have to suffer and be in pain if they choose not to be. Individuals should
have the right to make decisions about their own lives, including the choice to end
their suffering when facing unbearable pain or a terminal illness. Plus, when
performed with the patient's informed consent, can be seen as a compassionate and
humane response to end intolerable suffering.
Ending a life that is characterized by
unbearable suffering can be seen as a morally virtuous act.
4.
Do you consider Dr. Kevorkian’s practice of physician-assisted suicide morally
acceptable? Why or why not?
I do consider his practice of physician-assisted suicide morally acceptable. As
mentioned before, if an individual consent, then it is their decision as it is their life.
Plus, if you know you’re going to die painfully then you should have the right to pass
peacefully if you choose. Mentioned previously ending your life when you face
unbearable pain could be considered a morally virtuous act. Respecting a person's
autonomous choice in my opinion is a fundamental ethical principle.
5.
How might an act- utilitarian argue for physician- assisted suicide? Critique this
argument. How might a Kantian argue against physician-assisted suicide? With
which theory do you agree and why?
An act-utilitarian might argue in favor of physician-assisted suicide by
reasoning that it can maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering in certain
situations. Also act-utilitarians emphasize the importance of individual autonomy and
personal choice. Plus preventing physician-assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness,
more suffering could be inflicted upon patients who are left to suffer prolonged pain.
Some critiques in this argument are that it can be challenging to predict the long-term
consequences of a specific action accurately. However, the biggest critique is act-
utilitarians might prioritize happiness and autonomy, but this approach can conflict
with other deeply held ethical principles, such as the sanctity of life.
A Kantian would argue against physician-assisted suicide because Kant's
philosophy places a strong emphasis on duty, universal moral principles, and the
inherent value of human beings. Based on Kant’s categorical imperative permitting
physician-assisted suicide creates a problematic maxim. Plus, Kantian ethics are
deontological, meaning they emphasize the inherent moral worth of principles and
actions themselves, rather than the outcomes.
Out of the two theories I would in this case choose act-utilitarianism. The main
problem I have with the Kantian approach in this situation is they cannot understand
the outcome that physician-assisted suicide can provide for people. Plus, according to
them it would undermine the dignity of human life, but they do not consider the pain
an individual could be facing. However, act-utilitarianism is based around maximum
happiness, and they understand the importance of individual autonomy. This is
important to me because if I am someone who had a terminal illness and was in pain, I
would choose physician-assisted suicide, I do not understand why anyone should have
to be in pain, especially in their last moments.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help