1 II Is Euthanasia Wrong?. 2 Sullivan’s Project Sullivan argues that Rachels misinterprets the AMA doctrine, and that, when read correctly, the doctrine.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Is Euthanasia Wrong? Is Euthanasia Wrong? III III.
Advertisements

CATHOLIC VIEWS ON ABORTION
Organ Transplant Should Catholics do it? What is the Church’s Position What is the Church’s position on organ transplants? Let’s turn to the Catechism.
1 Artificial Nutrition and Hydration Jan C. Heller, Ph.D. Ethics and Theology Providence Health & Services.
1 Is Abortion Wrong? I I. 2 Some Background 1 st Mo.2 nd Mo.3 rd Mo.4 th Mo.5 th Mo.6 th Mo.7 th Mo.8 th Mo.9 th Mo. Conception “Zygote” “Embryo” “Fetus”
HUMANS AND OTHER ANIMALS THE UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND MARCH 22, 2002 Alice Haynes Room of the Tyler Haynes Commons 9:00William E. Cooper: Welcoming Remarks.
1 Voluntarily Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana.
Euthanasia: Gay-Williams, Rachels and Steinbock
Killing and Letting Die Is there a moral difference?
Euthanasia : Assisted Suicide for the Terminally Ill in the United States Gabrielle Mason.
Introduction to Ethics Lecture 22 Active & Passive Euthanasia
Euthanasia Euthanasia I I.
Euthanasia Euthanasia II II.
Euthanasia Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing.
Termination of Life-Sustaining Treatment Philip J. Boyle, Ph.D. Vice President, Mission & Ethics.
Famine, Affluence, and Morality. The Facts There is a massive amount of suffering in the world due to lack of clean water, malnutrition and easily treated.
10.1 Morality: A Response to God’s Love
Applied Ethics Ethical Issues Section 2 Computer Science.
Death and Dying Christian Perspectives on the End of Life.
General Principles: God is the Lord of our lives, the Lord over our birth and our death. Man is steward over his life, but this does not include the right.
Euthanasia The central problem of medical ethics.
INTRODUCTION euthanasia. definitions Euthanasia is the act of deliberately bringing about a death for humane reasons. Voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia.
Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) Manoj Bhatia. Introduction by Example.
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Odyssey: UNIV 300I Fall 2006 California State University, Long Beach.
Euthanasia & Assisted suicide
EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUICIDE: ACTS OF MERCY BY: MACKENZIE RACE.
Religion IV – Organ Donation & End of Life issues Note: these questions are not necessarily questions that you’ll encounter on the test. They will, however,
Marching Thru Arras. Mrs. Smith case n Severely demented n In no pain n Has some pleasure n Pulls out NG tube n Should we insert a G-tube?
Killing vs. Letting Die Rachels: Rachels: “Why should anyone favor letting ‘dehydration and infection wither a tiny being over hours and days?’ The.
END-OF-LIFE BASIC CONCEPTS “THOU OWEST GOD A DEATH”
1 Abortion III Abortion. 2 Marquis’ Project Thesis: In the overwhelming majority of cases, deliberate abortions are seriously immoral. Don Marquis: “Why.
ADVANCE DIRECTIVES Presented by Barbara Wojciak, Chaplain St. Vincent’s Birmingham Pastoral Care.
MEDICAL ETHICS. What do you think? What qualities do you “expect” a health care professional to have How do you want to be treated?
Ethics at the End of Life: Assisted Death
Questions and Guidelines
The Killing/Letting Die Argument
Euthanasia Part I Ethics Dr. Jason M. Chang. Euthanasia Directly or indirectly bringing about the death of another person for the person’s sake Examples.
Chapter Five: Euthanasia Review Applying Ethics: A Text with Readings (10 th ed.) Julie C. Van Camp, Jeffrey Olen, Vincent Barry Cengage Learning/Wadsworth.
Euthanasia. The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another—mercy killing—is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands.
Euthansia. Some Background: Voluntary Involuntary Passive Active Voluntary Passive Euthanasia Involuntary Passive Euthanasia Voluntary Active Euthanasia.
Termination of Life-Sustaining Treatment Philip J. Boyle, Ph.D. Vice President, Mission & Ethics.
Developing an Argument: Assisted Suicide.  Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged.
Euthanasia Part II Ethics Dr. Jason M. Chang.
Chapter Five: Euthanasia
DefinitionsWithholding treatment Legal MattersMisc.Case Studies
Euthanasia. Learning Intentions:  To be able to identify key terms and definitions.
Chapter 10: Euthanasia Confusion can come over questions like: - Whether someone is dead or ought to be considered dead - Whether it is permissible to.
Sarah E. Shannon, PhD, RN. Slide 2 Ethics: Forgoing Medical Therapy TNEEL-NE One exception is the state of Oregon where in 1999, about 1/3 of expected.
10.1 Morality: A Response to God’s Love Chapter 10 Cherishing Each Person ©Harcourt Religion.
Chapter 7: Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide
KANTIANISM AND EUTHANASIA ATTITUDES TO KEY ISSUES.
By Frank Gasior. - The popular definition of euthanasia is “mercy killing” The gospel of life defines euthanasia as “an act or omission which of itself.
Introduction to Ethics Lecture 21 Active & Passive Euthanasia By David Kelsey.
Living Wills & Estate Planning
Natural moral law on euthanasia
Definition of Euthanasia
Self-Determination Learning Objective: To explore the concept of self-determination. I can share my initial views on whether humans have the right to self-determination.
Chapter 10 Cherishing Each Person: Abortion, Euthanasia and Respect for Life Mr. Salter Morality.
Lesson Outcomes: know what the sanctity of life means
Death and Dying Issues.
BMA on end of life decisions
DIFFICULT DECISIONS.
Lecture 10: A Brief Summary
Ethics in Health Care.
EUTHANASIA.
FROM ORDINARY TO EXTRAORDINARY…
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Concepts and Issues
Medical Ethics – the end of life
Euthanasia By: Jessica Ladd.
The Morality of Euthanasia
Presentation transcript:

1 II Is Euthanasia Wrong?

2 Sullivan’s Project Sullivan argues that Rachels misinterprets the AMA doctrine, and that, when read correctly, the doctrine does not lead to the problems that Rachels contends. Thomas D. Sullivan: “Active and Passive Euthanasia: An Impertinent Distinction ”

3 The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another—mercy killing—is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands and is contrary to the policy of the American Medical Association. The cessation of the employment of extraordinary means to prolong the life of the body when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent is the decision of the patient and/or his immediate family. The advice and judgment of the physician should be freely available to the patient and/or his immediate family. American Medical Association Doctrine: The AMA doctrine forbids “active euthanasia”, and permits “passive euthanasia”.

4 Recall Rachels’ Arguments: Rachels presents three arguments against the policy: i.The AMA policy is cruel.  Case 1: Throat Cancer Patient: The AMA policy seems to require that such a patient endure a slow, painful death rather than allowing a lethal injection for terminally-ill patients.

5 Recall Rachels’ Arguments: ii.The AMA policy leads to life-and-death decisions based on irrelevant grounds.  Case 2: Down’s Syndrome Baby: The AMA policy, strictly interpreted, seems to allow newborn Down’s syndrome babies to die from intestinal blockages, though this is not the reason that parents think it best to let the babies die.

6 Recall Rachels’ Arguments: iii.The distinction made by the AMA policy is based on a false assumption that killing is worse than letting die.  Smith & Jones Thought Experiment: If killing were worse than letting die, we should say that Jones’ behavior was less reprehensible than Smith’s. But we do not want to say this, so this basis for the AMA doctrine is untenable.

7 Points of Agreement Sullivan agrees with Rachels that: 1)Letting a Down’s syndrome baby die from starvation and dehydration is cruel.  “It is cruel to stand by and watch a Down’s syndrome baby die an agonizing death when a simple operation would remove the intestinal obstruction, but to offer the excuse that in failing to operate we didn’t do anything to bring about the death is an example of moral evasiveness comparable to the excuse Jones would offer for his action of “merely” letting his cousin die.” (197)

8 2)There is no extra-moral badness that necessarily comes along with killing that wouldn’t come along with letting die. Points of Agreement Sullivan agrees with Rachels that:  “[I]t is true that if someone is trying to bring about the death of another human being, then it makes little difference from a moral point of view if his purpose is achieved by action or by malevolent omission, as in the cases of Jones and Smith.” (197)

9 Sullivan’s Criticisms of Rachels Sullivan argues, contrary to Rachels’ contention, that AMA policy is not based on an untenable moral distinction between killing and letting die. According to the AMA policy (charitably interpreted) intentionally killing a patient is wrong. ► Intentionally killing a patient “can be done by acting to bring about [his] death or by refusing ordinary means to keep [him] alive in order to bring about the same goal.” (197)

10 Sullivan’s Criticisms of Rachels What the AMA policy permits is refraining from employing extraordinary means to prolong life (under some conditions). ► The AMA policy makes no mention of ordinary means. ► Recall last class, slide 5: The North Carolina legal definition of “extraordinary means” includes “any procedure or intervention which in the judgment of the attending physician would serve only to postpone artificially the moment of death.” ► Sullivan refers to a definition of “extraordinary means” from Paul Ramsey’s book, The Patient as Person: “Extra-ordinary means of preserving life are all those medicines, treatments, and operations which cannot be obtained without excessive expense, pain, or other inconvenience, or which, if used, would not offer a reasonable hope of benefit.” (197)

11 Sullivan’s Criticisms of Rachels There is a legitimate distinction to be made between intentionally killing someone and refraining from taking extraordinary means to save the person. ► One can refrain from taking extraordinary means to save someone without at the same time intentionally killing him. ► One can foresee that a certain action will result in the patient’s death without thereby intending the patient’s death!

12 Sullivan’s Criticisms of Rachels ► If I drive downtown, I can foresee that I’ll wear down my tires a little, but I don’t drive downtown with the intention of wearing down my tires.

13 Sullivan’s Criticisms of Rachels ► If I forego my exercises for a few days, I can foresee that my physical condition will deteriorate a little, but I don’t omit my exercise with a view to running myself down.

14 Sullivan’s Criticisms of Rachels ► If you have to hire someone to fill a job, and you hire Mrs. Green, who is better qualified, rather than Mr. Brown, you can foresee that you will hurt Mr. Brown. But you needn’t hire Mrs. Green with the intention of hurting Mr. Brown. “[I]t is not the case that all foreseeable consequences and side effects of our conduct are necessarily intended. And it is because the physician’s withdrawal of certain extra-ordinary means can be otherwise motivated than by a desire to bring about the predictable death of the patient that such action cannot categorically be rules out as wrong.” (198) ► It may still be the case that the patient will make a miraculous recovery, and this doesn’t go against the physician’s intentions.

15 Ordinary and Extraordinary Means The AMA position rules out not only direct actions to bring about death (such as lethal injection), but also malevolent omissions, such as not providing ordinary care for a newborn baby. Rachels ignores the difference between ordinary and extraordinary means: performing surgery on the newborn or saving the drowning boy are certainly not extraordinary measures to take. Refusing ordinary means is another matter: what would be the point of refusing assistance which would offer a reasonable hope of benefit without excessive pain or expense?

16 Conclusion Since the AMA doctrine does not allow for letting Down’s syndrome babies to die from intestinal blockage, it is neither cruel nor does it lead to life and death decisions being made on irrelevant grounds. The AMA doctrine does not rest on some distinction between “active” and “passive” euthanasia. The AMA doctrine does not rest on some distinction between action and omission. Rather, the AMA doctrine is simply a prohibition against intentional killing, whether by action or omission.