Voluntary Active Euthanasia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this page is on a specific paper, for the category of Euthanasia, see Euthanasia

Voluntary Active Euthanasia is the name of a paper by Dan W. Brock in which it the morality and legality of Euthanasia is studied. Brock comes to the conclusion that Voluntary Active Euthanasia should be legalised, under proper conditions.

1 Approach
- 1.1 Physician-assisted suicide and Euthanasia
- 1.2 Passive and active
2 Consequences of legalizing Euthanasia
- 2.1 Good
- 2.2 Bad
3 Suggested Policy
4 References

[edit] Approach

Traditionally, there are 8 types of mercy killing.

Types

But Brock subverts this by claiming that there is no ethical difference between Physician-assisted suicide and Euthanasia, and there is no ethical difference between passive and active euthanasia.

[edit] Physician-assisted suicide and Euthanasia

In arguing that Physician-assisted suicide and Euthanasia are morally equal, he creates a thought experiment of a physician and a patient teaming up to kill another person, the physician provides a lethal drug, while the patient does the final act of murder. Here we see that it doesn't matter who "presses the button", because they are both heavily involved in the action..

[edit] Passive and active

In arguing that passive and active Euthanasia are morally equal, Brock creates a thought experiment where a group of doctors decide to discontinue treatment of a patient in one case, and in the other case, they get stuck in traffic and do not treat the patient. In both cases the result is the same, so we are lead to believe that the ethical difference between the two is traffic. Brock argues that even passive behaviours are actions, and that letting die is morally equal to killing.

[edit] Consequences of legalizing Euthanasia

[edit] Good

Those who want Euthanasia can now have it (self-determination)
Legalizing Euthanasia will benefit a much larger group since most Americans support Euthanasia.
Gives regular people assurance that they can die as they please in the case of an accident
Prevents a great deal of suffering (the loss of dignity) at death

[edit] Bad

Lose trust of physician

Brock responds that he only supports voluntary euthanasia.

Puts pressure on dying patients to allow euthanasia, and makes them justify their lives.

Brock responds that a decision to not take one's self off life support already requires the same justification for life, so this argument is nothing new in the subject. If it is used against Euthanasia, then it should be used against ICU too.

Legalizing euthanasia is a slippery slope

Brock responds that this is very speculative.

[edit] Suggested Policy

One of the most popular opinions on Euthanasia is that it is morally acceptable, and that those who want to die, should be able to die, but many of these people also feel that it cannot practically be put into legal policy. Brock suggests a new policy that tries to minimize the potential bad consequences of legalizing Euthanasia:

Only physicians can perform Euthanasia
Patient must be fully informed on medical condition
Must ensure patient's request for euthanasia is "stable and enduring" (suggests a waiting period)
All reasonable alternatives must be explored for improving patient's quality of life
A psychiatric examination must be taken to assure that this patient is capable of informed consent