1

THE MORAL ISSUE OF EUTHANASIA 5.1. Meaning and Cases: Thanatos death; Eu easy (easy death); deliberate putting to death, in an easy, painless way, of an individual suffering from an incurable and agonizing disease; popularly known as mercy killing; self-administered or otheradministered 5.1.1. Active and Voluntary Euthanasia (E) a physician, spouse or friend of the patient terminates the latters life upon the latters request (voluntary requested by the patient; active uses positive means) 5.1.2. Passive and Voluntary E patient is simply allowed to die upon his request (passive no positive method is employed; voluntary patients request) 5.1.3. Active and Nonvoluntary someone else decides that the life of the terminally ill patient should be terminated (nonvoluntary not decided by the patient) 5.1.4. Passive and Nonvoluntary patient is simply allowed to die as requested by immediate family members (passive no positive means; nonvoluntary other persons decide) 5.2. Problem of Human Dignity: preserves human dignity or hastens the death of an individual 5.3. Different views: 5.3.1. T.G. Williams: (1) E is intentional killing and opposes the natural inclination to preserve life (argument from nature); (2) may be performed for purposes of self-interest or other consequences; we should fight for our life to recover from serious illness (argument from self-interest); (3) health care professionals may be tempted not to do their best to save the patient (argument from practical effects) 5.3.2. James Rachels (Ph.D., UNC, 1967): E is humane because it allows suffering to be brought to a speedy end; evil intentions make it morally wrong 5.3.3. Philippa Foot (Sommerville, Oxford then UCLA; co-founder of Oxfam): endorses both active and passive E if the patient explicitly gives consent; active and passive voluntary E can be regarded as legitimate if a person decides that life is no longer worth living after battling some incurable disease 5.3.4. Richard Brandt (Michigan): follows Rosss notion of prima facie duty not to injure others by saying that it is our prima facie duty to follow the patients wishes (to die painlessly or to sustain life under any circumstances) rather than be remiss in our obligation 5.4. Application of Ethical Theories: 5.4.1. Condemned by natural law ethics as direct and deliberate killing (the good motive does not justify the evil means) 5.4.2. Principle of double effect may allow if the intention is medication 5.4.3. Kants human dignity of an autonomous rational being; a comatose patient loses autonomy seemingly 5.4.4. Organ-transplant advocates will benefit those in need (Pragmatic) 5.4.5. Situation ethicians may allow under patients request (agapeic love) 5.4.6. Rawls Justice means painless and honorable death

Ch. 6: THE MORAL ISSUE OF SUICIDE 6.0. Ancient Times: (A) Socrates Suicide (S) makes gods angry; (B) Plato suicide can be allowed if there is (1) any shame of extreme distress and impoverishment, (2) affliction by any extraordinary sorrow, and (3) inevitable turn of fortune; (C) Aristotle act of cowardice and an offense against the state; (D) Epicurus a recourse if life ceases to be a pleasant one; (E) Lucius Seneca an escape from suffering and from the decay of old age; (F) Bible: Samson, King Saul, Judas Iscariot 6.1. Meaning and Causes of Suicide: direct and willful destruction of ones own life (direct primary object is killing; willful deliberate, voluntary and intentional; destructive the means could be violent or brutal 6.1.1. Suicide presupposes ones healthy physical condition (Euthanasia = incurable ailment); agent is solely responsible for his/her own death 6.1.2. Japanese Shintoist those who died for their country became one of the deities; Buddhist monks burned themselves to death in protest against Vietnamese tyrants 6.1.3. Most reasons are either one or an overlap of personal, financial and social 6.1.3.1. Personal: (1) misfortune and frustration in love, (2) apathy towards BF/GF, (3) in-law problems, (4) exam failure, (5) loss of honor, e.g., incest or rape, (6) nervous breakdown due to culture shock 6.1.3.2. Social and Political: (1) failed coup detat and (2) protest versus inhumanity 6.2. Cons of Suicide 6.2.1. Flavius Josephus (c. 37-100): (1) Suicide is a crime which is contrary to the common nature of all animals; (2) contrary to the divine will 6.2.2. Augustine: (1)Greater sin than any and all sins that could be allegedly avoided by committing it, (2) against 5th command, (3) deprives opportunity to repent, (4) ignoble act through which one attempts to escape the ills of life 6.2.3. Aquinas: (1) against natural law, (2) deprives community of his activity which is also deeply affected by his sudden (and sometimes violent) death, (3) usurpation of Gods function 6.3. The Pros of Suicide 6.3.1. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592): Suicide becomes excusable if and when an individual reaches a point where all that he feels is terrible pain, agony and misery

2
6.3.2. John Donne (1573-1631, British clergyman): a means of liberating oneself from exploitation and oppression 6.3.3. Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755): Suicide does not disturb the order of providence 6.3.4. David Hume (1711-1776, Scottish): (1) permissible because it removes misery; (2) laudable when ones life becomes a liability and a burden to society; (3) mans life is as disposable as that of an oysters 6.4. Application of Ethical Theories: (1) self-murder by natural law ethics; (2) no person has acquired life by his own effort; life is a gift from God; (3) Utilitarian greatest happiness principle may justify it, (4) Kant may reject (a person is an end, not a means) or support it (rational beings autonomy)