Start with your readings. . . what do Rachels, Callahan, and Brock say about the morality of euthanasia? What do we mean by euthanasia? (It might not be what you think).
From what i can tell from reading ( and this is obviously my interpretation of the readings which may be different from someone else), Rachel's states evidence that supports both the active euthanasia and the passive Euthanasia. He says that according to the conventional doctrine on the morality of euthanasia it only allows passive euthanasia where the doctor doesn't do anything and just lets the patient die. But he says this doctrine can be challenged. One reason is that the most common argument is invalid. Second, is that active euthanasia is in many more ways humane. Third, conventional doctrine rests on a distinction between killing and letting someone die themselves has no moral importance. fourth, conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds. So even though he gives evidence to support both sides (active and passive), it seems to me he supports the more active side for those reasons. Now when reading Callahan's view on euthanasia, it seems to me that he believes in a distinction between the two. he says they are distinct for three reasons; moral, metaphysical and medical. In regards to morality he says the difference lies between physical causality and moral culpability. To end another's life by injection means our action is the physical cause of death while letting one die (that which we did not cause) from the disease is to permit the disease to act on its own. Someone who without good reason pulls out a patients tube can be morally culpable if the patient dies cause of this and not the underlying condition. For him the moral question is whether or not we are obliged to continue treating a life that is being artificially sustained. Brock's view on euthanasia differs a bit from Rachel and Callahan. Brock argues, in his article, that there are two fundamental ethical values in regards to the permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia. Brock says that allowing physicians to perform euthanasia is not incompatible with the moral center of medicine. According to him, euthanasia is okay and doesn't seem to cause a moral problem. Again, these are all my interpretations of the reading and may be entirely different from someone else's view of the reading. To me when i hear the word euthanasia i think of "mercy killing". It is someone killing another person with their permission but when i look in the dictionary is says "Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering."
Rachel's views on Euthanasia are that active euthanasia is more humane that its passive counterpart. Secondly she finds that these types of euthanasia have clear distinction such as between actual killing and simply letting on die painfully she says this has no moral importance. Lastly the doctrine has the right to be challenged.In my opinion i think Rachel leads more towards the active euthanasia because in most of the cases he supports both but in each case the situations are different. Over all the tone of what he says leads more towards the active Euthanasia side. Callahan's view is that there is a distinction between killing and letting one die emphasizing differences between physical causality and moral culpability. We can be Morally culpable if we kill someone when having no moral right to do so and again if having the chance to save someone but chose not to that is when one is morally culpable. If one cant distinguish between whether to keep a person on life support even though they have an underlying disease that will kill them anyway. Essentially they are going to die there is no need for their life to be sustained and no moral issue is brought about. Brock view is that autonomy and the well-being of the individual means patients have the right to make decisions of life sustaining treatment. Brock states that Euthanasia does not sit well with the moral obligation involved in the field of medicine. Self determination limits the scope to which euthanasia can be administered. This is due to human dignity which lies in peoples capacity to direct their lives in their own way through self determination. When i hear Euthanasia i remember what i was told as a child that it is morally wrong to kill someone not matter what because they have a right to live as much as everyone else. when i grew older i told them that isn't better to give them Euthanasia because they wont suffer anymore and it will help them to preserve that last few minutes of precious life they have before dieing.
I agree more with Callahan's view on the situation. I do agree that there is a distinction between killing someone and allowing someone to die. Like Callahan said, when you allow someone to die from an underlying disease, it is the underlying disease that kills them and not you. For example, when a person has pneumonia and would clearly die without medical attention, a family member refusing to artificially keep the family member alive is not the killer of the patient, the killer is the pneumonia. Why should it be our responsibility to make sure that a patient has everything necessarily to recover, because that is not how life works. We are incapable of saving everyone. By Rachel's view, it seems that if we are incapable of keeping someone alive, then it is essentially our fault for one's death. And I do not agree with that. It would be too morally upsetting to think people have the power to prevent every death that occurs and that it is in our hand's, when it clearly isn't. Since reading all of the material, I do believe that their is a difference between allowing someone to die, and killing someone.
I understand both Rachels and Callahans views, but also question some of the things about both of them. For Callahan I still think it would be considered euthanasia from a doctor's perspective, if the doctor decided to stop treatment. I do understand that there are situations where letting someone pass away could be an overall better thing if that would allow for the doctors to save more lives. For example, if a patient is inevitably going to pass away and they are only prolonging ones death. Yet again I think that Callahan's view is sticky because it goes against the doctors code to do everything they can to keep their patients alive. I also disagree with Rachel's view that it would be the doctor's fault if a patient passed away, because if a doctor or medical professional did everything they could to try and save the patient then I would say that there is nothing else that could be done and it's not their fault.
From what i can tell from reading ( and this is obviously my interpretation of the readings which may be different from someone else), Rachel's states evidence that supports both the active euthanasia and the passive Euthanasia. He says that according to the conventional doctrine on the morality of euthanasia it only allows passive euthanasia where the doctor doesn't do anything and just lets the patient die. But he says this doctrine can be challenged. One reason is that the most common argument is invalid. Second, is that active euthanasia is in many more ways humane. Third, conventional doctrine rests on a distinction between killing and letting someone die themselves has no moral importance. fourth, conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds. So even though he gives evidence to support both sides (active and passive), it seems to me he supports the more active side for those reasons. Now when reading Callahan's view on euthanasia, it seems to me that he believes in a distinction between the two. he says they are distinct for three reasons; moral, metaphysical and medical. In regards to morality he says the difference lies between physical causality and moral culpability. To end another's life by injection means our action is the physical cause of death while letting one die (that which we did not cause) from the disease is to permit the disease to act on its own. Someone who without good reason pulls out a patients tube can be morally culpable if the patient dies cause of this and not the underlying condition. For him the moral question is whether or not we are obliged to continue treating a life that is being artificially sustained. Brock's view on euthanasia differs a bit from Rachel and Callahan. Brock argues, in his article, that there are two fundamental ethical values in regards to the permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia. Brock says that allowing physicians to perform euthanasia is not incompatible with the moral center of medicine. According to him, euthanasia is okay and doesn't seem to cause a moral problem. Again, these are all my interpretations of the reading and may be entirely different from someone else's view of the reading. To me when i hear the word euthanasia i think of "mercy killing". It is someone killing another person with their permission but when i look in the dictionary is says "Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering."
ReplyDeleteRachel's views on Euthanasia are that active euthanasia is more humane that its passive counterpart. Secondly she finds that these types of euthanasia have clear distinction such as between actual killing and simply letting on die painfully she says this has no moral importance. Lastly the doctrine has the right to be challenged.In my opinion i think Rachel leads more towards the active euthanasia because in most of the cases he supports both but in each case the situations are different. Over all the tone of what he says leads more towards the active Euthanasia side. Callahan's view is that there is a distinction between killing and letting one die emphasizing differences between physical causality and moral culpability. We can be Morally culpable if we kill someone when having no moral right to do so and again if having the chance to save someone but chose not to that is when one is morally culpable. If one cant distinguish between whether to keep a person on life support even though they have an underlying disease that will kill them anyway. Essentially they are going to die there is no need for their life to be sustained and no moral issue is brought about. Brock view is that autonomy and the well-being of the individual means patients have the right to make decisions of life sustaining treatment. Brock states that Euthanasia does not sit well with the moral obligation involved in the field of medicine. Self determination limits the scope to which euthanasia can be administered. This is due to human dignity which lies in peoples capacity to direct their lives in their own way through self determination. When i hear Euthanasia i remember what i was told as a child that it is morally wrong to kill someone not matter what because they have a right to live as much as everyone else. when i grew older i told them that isn't better to give them Euthanasia because they wont suffer anymore and it will help them to preserve that last few minutes of precious life they have before dieing.
ReplyDeleteI agree more with Callahan's view on the situation. I do agree that there is a distinction between killing someone and allowing someone to die. Like Callahan said, when you allow someone to die from an underlying disease, it is the underlying disease that kills them and not you. For example, when a person has pneumonia and would clearly die without medical attention, a family member refusing to artificially keep the family member alive is not the killer of the patient, the killer is the pneumonia. Why should it be our responsibility to make sure that a patient has everything necessarily to recover, because that is not how life works. We are incapable of saving everyone. By Rachel's view, it seems that if we are incapable of keeping someone alive, then it is essentially our fault for one's death. And I do not agree with that. It would be too morally upsetting to think people have the power to prevent every death that occurs and that it is in our hand's, when it clearly isn't. Since reading all of the material, I do believe that their is a difference between allowing someone to die, and killing someone.
ReplyDeleteI understand both Rachels and Callahans views, but also question some of the things about both of them. For Callahan I still think it would be considered euthanasia from a doctor's perspective, if the doctor decided to stop treatment. I do understand that there are situations where letting someone pass away could be an overall better thing if that would allow for the doctors to save more lives. For example, if a patient is inevitably going to pass away and they are only prolonging ones death. Yet again I think that Callahan's view is sticky because it goes against the doctors code to do everything they can to keep their patients alive. I also disagree with Rachel's view that it would be the doctor's fault if a patient passed away, because if a doctor or medical professional did everything they could to try and save the patient then I would say that there is nothing else that could be done and it's not their fault.
Delete