A review (3 pages) of one student article from STOA-InternationalUndergraduate Journal of Philosophy (pdf attached)
· Describe the philosophical issue the student paper of your choice deals with and the main arguments offered. Evaluation of the arguments is optional This serves as practice for starting with the job of generating reading notes and writing the midterm paper.
** Before starting the assignment make sure to view and understand \the difference between descriptive and normative reading notes and writing in general. YouTube Link: https:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6C38QEJsCY
Microsoft Word - STOA#2
STOA 1: XXXXXXXXXX
© 1998 The Center for Philosophical Education, Santa Ba
ara City College,
Department of Philosophy, 721 Cliff Dr., Santa Ba
ara, CA 93109, USA.
3
Euthanasia
Shanda Hastings
West Virginia University
Euthanasia, the term used to describe mercy killings, is a topic that
causes great controversy in the United States. Actually it is voluntary
active euthanasia that the controversy stems from because passive
euthanasia is legal and socially accepted. In active euthanasia the
terminally ill person is given something to kill them, but in passive
euthanasia the person is just left to die of natural causes. Also, no
one really argues over involuntary euthanasia because essentially it
is murder. Another option that is similar to active euthanasia is
physician assisted suicide, which is where a patient kills themselves
with the guidance of a physician. Many people argue over whether
voluntary active euthanasia is moral and that even though
implementing it does have its risks, that it is a better option than not
allowing it to be a legal choice for the terminally ill.
The first argument that I will propose (Argument A) is that
voluntary active euthanasia is moral. I believe that Dan W. Brock
sets forth a great argument defending this belief in the article
"Voluntary Active Euthanasia". Brock defends the morality of
voluntary active euthanasia with the same reasons that are given
when explaining the right to refuse medical treatment. These two
easons are autonomy and well-being. Autonomy means that on is
self-governing within the limits of justice. Autonomy preserves a
persons sense of control and dignity. If granted autonomy then one
can make the choices that will determine how one will live one's life.
Autonomy essentially asks the question: who owns your life? Since
we live in a free society, the answer should be the individual. By
keeping voluntary active euthanasia illegal, the government is
4 STOA
estricting everyone from deciding one of the most basic choices in
life, whether to live or die. Well-being refers to the happiness and
quality of a person's life. So if someone's life has become more of a
urden and is no longer worth living, it would be acting in the
interest of their well-being to let them die quickly (Brock 70-72).
In fact it seems that it may be more moral to kill someone rather
than just taking them off life support and then making them suffer
from emba
assment and pain until they finally die of whatever ails
them. Passive euthanasia is not really passive because unhooking
someone from life support is in itself an action. So if you are going
to perform some action and it will result in the death of the patient,
then it seems to be in the best interest of the patient to allow them to
die quickly if they so choose.
A strong objection to Argument A is that in voluntary active
euthanasia someone actually kills the patient, but in passive
euthanasia the person dies naturally. So voluntary active euthanasia
equals killing, regardless if the patient consents to it and killing an
innocent person is intrinsically wrong. In his article "Killing and
Allowing to Die", Daniel Callahan explains this idea by using moral
culpability. He says that if someone actually injects a person with a
lethal injection then that person is the physical cause of death.
However by removing a respirator from someone that can not
eathe, the actual cause of death is the disease that stopped the
eathing in the first place. So if a person kills a terminally ill person
without a moral right to do so, then they are morally culpable
(Callahan 68).
This objection depends on the idea that killing is immoral in
cases of euthanasia. As I mentioned above, it seems that it may be
more moral to kill someone then to just let them die, an action that
doesn't have a predetermined amount of time. However, by
legalizing voluntary active euthanasia it would be up to the
individual to decide if they think that euthanasia is moral. If
someone believes it is all right, then they have that option and if they
don't then they aren't forced to choose euthanasia. This does not
interfere with anyone's autonomy because people with entirely
opposing beliefs on the subject are both allowed to choose what is
ight to them. If voluntary active euthanasia remains illegal then
EUTANASIA 5
some people are not allowed to make a decision for themselves even
though it does not harm anyone else's right, just because some
people believe it should be that way. This goes totally against the
idea of autonomy and can possibly harm a person's well-being in the
process.
Now, assuming that it is agreed that voluntary active euthanasia
is moral, there is still the question of whether the risks of legalizing
are too risky for society. First of all, I will explain the most serious
isks that could result from legalizing voluntary active euthanasia. In
"Objections to the Institutionalism of Euthanasia", Stephen G. Potts
outlines nine risks that he foresees for society if legalization takes
place. Of these nine, three of his arguments seem like they describe
serious risks. The first risk is the difficulty of oversight and
egulation. This wo
y is that if euthanasia were legalized then
abuses would start to take place in situations where a large
inheritance is at stake or a doctor makes a mistake in diagnosing the
treatment of a patient and wants to cover his tracks. The second risk,
the slippery slope effect, is very similar to the first risk. This risk
deals with the fear that if we legalize voluntary active euthanasia, it
will lead to nonvoluntary euthanasia. This would put all the
comatose and demented patients at risk of being killed. Then it
would lead to involuntary euthanasia, where the "polluters of the
gene pool" or the unwanted in society will be killed against their
will. The third valid risk is pressure on the patient. There is a fear
that if euthanasia were legalized, that the patients would feel that
they are a burden to their family and would be more likely to pick
euthanasia, not because they want to, but because their family is
pressuring them. A final serious risk is cost and benefits. This wo
y
can be taken two ways. Potts argues that the poor have the most to
lose by legalizing euthanasia because it is cheaper (Potts XXXXXXXXXXIn
the decision of the court case Compassion in Dying v. State of
Washington, while Judge Noonan explains the decision in a case
about physician assisted suicide he also makes a great argument
about costs and benefits. He argues that because the poor are given
less money for health care, they are less likely to have their pain
alleviated. So for them euthanasia would end up being chosen more
6 STOA
often, so that they could finally be relieved from the pain that those
more well off would not have to deal with (Noonan 100).
Since these risks are just probabilities of what could happen and
not facts, it makes it difficult to know for sure whether the pro-
legalization or anti-legalization advocates have a better argument.
However, I argue (Argument B), that with thorough government
egulation the risks that legalization causes can be greatly reduced.
So much in fact that not legalizing voluntary active euthanasia would
e a greater risk of autonomy and well-being then keeping it illegal.
If the government came up with thorough regulations, voluntary
active euthanasia would not be a serious threat to society. In all of
the risks that were mentioned earlier, they all stem from a problem of
enforcement. The problem of oversight, regulation, and slippery
slope is that the power to kill will be abused. The people who would
suffer would be the incompetent or the unwanted people of society.
Also the fear that euthanasia could be used to hide mistakes of
doctors or for financial gain of family members falls into this
category. The regulations that Oregon enacted in Measure 16
(Mappes 60) in favor of physician assisted suicide are a great starting
point to counter these abuses. By taking this measure and changing it
to fit with voluntary active euthanasia the requirements would be: 1)
that the patient must give an oral request and reiterate that request
fifteen days later, and would also require a written request that is
witnessed by two witnesses. 2) Before killing the patient 15 days
must pass after the oral request and 48 hours after the written
equest. 3) The attending physician must inform the patient of all
choices available and I would add that a lawyer be present during
this period and during the signing of the written contract to safeguard
the doctor. 4) There must be a second opinion from another doctor
who would also reiterate all the options. 5) It must be clear that the
equest is voluntary and was made by a patient capable of decision
making(for example, not someone clinically depressed). I would also
add that all the steps involved be video recorded for proof that the
doctor followed all the regulations. 6) Another stipulation that I
would add would be that at least two family members be notified of
the decision, to make sure the doctor is not persuading the patient
unfairly. 7) Of course the death would have to be reported to the
EUTANASIA 7
proper authority and an autopsy could always be available if
necessary. These stipulations will check that there isn't pressure from
one person that may cause the patient to do something that they don't
want to do by forcing many different individuals to be involved.
The last two risks not covered by