Religion Ethics Lesson 12 Last week we utilized

  • Slides: 24
Download presentation
Religion & Ethics

Religion & Ethics

Lesson 12 Last week, we utilized the view that “we can always find a

Lesson 12 Last week, we utilized the view that “we can always find a justification why God commanded a specific law or action” as we mentioned for the issue of the “stubborn and rebellious son”. This law is ethical because the objective justifies the means. This lesson we will deal with the contradiction between religion and ethics in the issue of euthanasia - mercy killing. Part 1

Philosophers are rarely in agreement as to the explanation of moral concepts. Yet, mercy,

Philosophers are rarely in agreement as to the explanation of moral concepts. Yet, mercy, has been a controversy both as to its moral status, as well as to its very nature. According to Aristotle, who expresses a long-standing tradition, mercy, or pity (eleos)33 is a certain emotion, "a kind of pain excited by the sight of evil, deadly or painful, which befalls one who does not deserve it" (Rhetoric II, Ch. 8). This is the meaning of eleos in Homer too; "the emotion roused by contact with an affliction which comes undeservedly on someone else. " Thus, in most of Greek literature, eleos is a kind of emotion, not a feature of acts. A very significant change in the meaning of eleos is to be found in the Jewish sources. The change is expressed in the fact that the emphasis in eleos shifts from the emotion of mercy to the manifestation of this emotion in acts, in particular God's acts toward human beings. This lesson we utilize the latter meaning.

The applied ethical issue of euthanasia, (Greek, "pleasant death" see footnote) or mercy killing,

The applied ethical issue of euthanasia, (Greek, "pleasant death" see footnote) or mercy killing, concerns whether it is morally permissible for a third party, such as a physician, to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is in intense pain. Types of Euthanasia Apart from the above classifications three types of euthanasia may be identified, depending upon the sentience of the individual: 1 - Voluntary euthanasia This is the truest and fullest form of euthanasia wherein the individual requests euthanasia - either during illness, a disease or any abnormal condition of the body or mind that causes terrible discomfort, dysfunction, or distress to the person affected or those in contact with the person.

2 - Non-Voluntary euthanasia Where an individual lacks sentience (in a coma, for example)

2 - Non-Voluntary euthanasia Where an individual lacks sentience (in a coma, for example) and hence cannot decide, or distinguish, between life and death. 3 - Involuntary euthanasia Where an individual may distinguish between life and death - and may fully realize the difference between them, but who death is imposed upon. If, for example, a man is going to experience severe agony and does not consent to death, euthanasia may be imposed upon him. We not deal with this issue, all philosophers (today) forbid the act of involuntary euthanasia. While the practice of involuntary euthanasia was in Nazi Germany. It began with the active killing of the severely ill, and built on earlier proposals advanced by leading German physicians and academics in the 1920 s, before the Nazis took power.

For thousands of years, philosophers and religious thinkers have addressed the ethics of suicide.

For thousands of years, philosophers and religious thinkers have addressed the ethics of suicide. These debates have rested on broad principles about duties to self and to society as well as fundamental questions of the value of human life. Many great thinkers of Western intellectual history have contributed to this debate, ranging from Plato and Aristotle in ancient Greece to Augustine and Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages, and Locke, Hume, and Kant in more modern times. In ancient Greece, euthanasia was not practiced, and suicide itself was generally disfavored. Some Greek philosophers, however, argued that suicide would be acceptable under exceptional circumstances. Plato, for example, believed that suicide was generally cowardly and unjust but that it could be an ethically acceptable act if an individual had an immoral and incorrigible character, had committed a disgraceful action, or had lost control over his or her actions due to grief or suffering.

Unlike contemporary proponents of assisted suicide and euthanasia, who regard individual self-determination as central,

Unlike contemporary proponents of assisted suicide and euthanasia, who regard individual self-determination as central, Plato considered the individual's desire to live or die largely irrelevant to determining whether suicide might be an appropriate act. An objective evaluation of the individual's moral worthiness, not the individual's decision about the value of continued life, was critical. In contrast to Plato, the Stoics of the later Hellenistic and Roman eras focused more strongly on the welfare of the individual than on the community. They believed that, while life in general should be lived fully, suicide could be appropriate in certain rare circumstances when deprivation or illness no longer allowed for a "natural" life. The Stoics did not, however, maintain that suicide would be justified whenever an individual loses the desire to live. Unlike contemporary proponents of a right to suicide assistance, the Stoics believed that suicide was appropriate only when the individual loses the ability to pursue the life that nature intended.

On the whole, ancient Greek thinkers seem to have favored euthanasia, even though they

On the whole, ancient Greek thinkers seem to have favored euthanasia, even though they opposed suicide. An exception is Hippocrates (460 -370 BCE), the ancient Greek physician, who in his famous oath states that "I will not prescribe a deadly drug to please someone, nor give advice that may cause his death. " The Doctors oath places emphasis on the value of preserving life and in putting the good of patients above the private interests of physicians. These two aspects of the oath make it an important creed for many health care workers today. In medieval times, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim philosophers opposed active euthanasia, although the Christian Church and Jewish “Posekim”, scholars who concentrate on determining the Halakha in practice, commentators and expounders of the Torah have accepted passive euthanasia.

By the sixteenth century, philosophers began to challenge the generally accepted religious condemnation of

By the sixteenth century, philosophers began to challenge the generally accepted religious condemnation of suicide. Michel de Montaigne, a sixteenth-century philosopher, argued that suicide was not a question of Christian belief but a matter of personal choice. In an essay presenting arguments on both sides of the issue, he concluded that suicide was an acceptable moral choice in some circumstances, noting that "pain and the fear of a worse death seem to me the most excusable incitements. " Other writers employed more theological arguments to challenge the religious prohibition on suicide. In the early seventeenth century, for example, John Donne (17 th century English Metaphysical, Jacobean poet & preacher) asserted that while suicide is morally wrong in many cases, it can be acceptable if performed with the intention of glorifying God, not serving self-interest. Donne acknowledged the merit of laws against suicide that discouraged the practice, but he argued that civil and common laws ordinarily admit of some exceptions, suggesting that suicide could be morally acceptable in certain cases.

In the eighteenth century, David Hume (Scottish philosopher, economist, and historian) made the first

In the eighteenth century, David Hume (Scottish philosopher, economist, and historian) made the first unapologetic defense of the moral permissibility of suicide on grounds of individual autonomy and social benefit. He asserted that even if a person's death would weaken the community, suicide would be morally permissible if the good it afforded the individual outweighed the loss to society. Moreover, suicide would be positive if the person's death would benefit the group and the individual. Hume did not advocate that all suicides are justified, but argued that when life is most plagued by suffering, suicide is most acceptable. Other philosophers of the Age of Reason, such as John Locke (17 th century British philosopher, Oxford academic and medical researcher) and Immanuel Kant, opposed suicide. Locke argued that life, like liberty, represents an inalienable right, which cannot be taken from, or given away by, an individual. For Kant, suicide was a paradigmatic example of an action that violates moral responsibility.

Kant believed that the proper end of rational beings requires selfpreservation, and that suicide

Kant believed that the proper end of rational beings requires selfpreservation, and that suicide would therefore be inconsistent with the fundamental value of human life. Like some contemporary opponents of assisted suicide and euthanasia, Kant argued that taking one's own life was inconsistent with the notion of autonomy, properly understood. Autonomy, in Kant's view, does not mean the freedom to do whatever one wants, but instead depends on the knowing subjugation of one's desires and inclinations to one's rational understanding of universally valid moral rules. In an 1870 work, schoolmaster and essayist Samuel D. Williams argued that "in all cases of hopeless and painful illness it should be the recognized duty of the medical attendant, whenever so desired by the patient, to administer chloroform, or other anesthetics that supersedes chloroform, so as to destroy consciousness at once, and put the sufferer at once to a quick and painless end.

Support for euthanasia at this time was animated in part by the philosophy of

Support for euthanasia at this time was animated in part by the philosophy of social Darwinism and concerns with eugenics improving the biological stock of the community. In 1873, essayist Lionel A. Tollemache (1838 – 1919) asserted that euthanasia could serve the patient's interests and benefit society in appropriate cases by removing an individual who was "unhealthy, unhappy, and useless. Over the course of the following decades, essays discussing euthanasia continued to appear in medical and popular journals. The British Parliament debated a bill to legalize euthanasia in 1936. In the United States, similar proposals were introduced in state legislatures during the first half of the twentieth century, including New York State in 1947. Following World War II, however, the term "euthanasia" became disfavored due to sensitivity about Nazi practices.

During the Renaissance, English humanist Thomas More (1478 -1535) defended Euthanasia in his book,

During the Renaissance, English humanist Thomas More (1478 -1535) defended Euthanasia in his book, “Utopia” (1516). More describes in ideal terms the function of hospitals. “Hospital workers watch after patients with tender care and do everything in their power to cure ills. However, when a patient has a torturous and incurable illness, the patient has the option to die, either through starvation or opium. ” In New Atlantis (1627), British philosopher Francis Bacon (1561 -1626) writes that physicians are "not only to restore the health, but to mitigate pain and dolors (sadness); and not only when such mitigation may conduce to recovery, but when it may serve to make a fair and easy passage. "

The euthanasia controversy is part of a larger issue concerning the right to die.

The euthanasia controversy is part of a larger issue concerning the right to die. Staunch defenders of personal liberty argue that all of us are morally entitled to end our lives when we see fit. Thus, according to this view, suicide is in principle morally permissible. For health care workers, the issue of the right to die is most prominent when a patient in their care: (1) Is terminally ill, (2) Is in intense pain (3) Voluntarily chooses to end his life to escape prolonged suffering. In these cases, there are several theoretical options open to the health care worker. First, the worker can ignore the patient's request and care can continue as usual.

Second, the worker can discontinue providing life-sustaining treatment to the patient, and thus allow

Second, the worker can discontinue providing life-sustaining treatment to the patient, and thus allow him to die more quickly. This option is called passive euthanasia since it brings on death through non-intervention. Third, the health care worker can provide the patient with the means of taking his own life, such as a lethal dose of a drug. This practice is called assisted suicide, since it is the patient, and not technically the health care worker, who administers the drug. Finally, the health care worker can take active measures to end the patient's life, such as by directly administering a lethal dose of a drug. This practice is called active euthanasia since the health care worker's action is the direct cause of the patient's death. Active euthanasia is the most controversial of the four options and is currently illegal in the United States. However, several right to die organizations are lobbying for the laws against active euthanasia to change.

Two additional concepts are relevant to the discussion of euthanasia. First, voluntary euthanasia refers

Two additional concepts are relevant to the discussion of euthanasia. First, voluntary euthanasia refers to mercy killing that takes place with the explicit and voluntary consent of the patient, either verbally or in a written document such as a living will. Second, non-voluntary euthanasia refers to the mercy killing of a patient who is unconscious, comatose, or otherwise unable to explicitly make his intentions known. In these cases it is often family members who make the request. It is important not to confuse non-voluntary mercy killing with involuntary mercy killing. The latter would be done against the wishes of the patient and most philosophers suggest that this event would clearly count as murder.

One of the most cited contemporary discussions on the subject of euthanasia is "Active

One of the most cited contemporary discussions on the subject of euthanasia is "Active and Passive Euthanasia" (1975) by University of Alabama philosophy professor James Rachels argues that there is no moral difference between actively killing a patient and passively allowing the patient to die. Thus, it is less cruel for physicians to use active procedures of mercy killing. Rachels argues that, from a strictly moral standpoint, there is no difference between passive and active euthanasia. He begins by noting that the AMA (American Medical Association) prohibits active euthanasia, yet allows passive euthanasia. He argues for why physicians should place passive euthanasia in the same category as active euthanasia. Techniques of passive euthanasia prolong the suffering of the patient, for it takes longer to passively allow the patient to die than it would if active measures were taken. In the mean time, the patient is in unbearable pain.

Since in either case the decision has been made to bring on an early

Since in either case the decision has been made to bring on an early death, it is cruel to adopt the longer procedure. Second, Rachels argues that the passive euthanasia distinction encourages physicians to make life and death decisions on irrelevant grounds. For example, Down's syndrome infants often have correctable congenital defects; but decisions are made to forego corrective surgery (and thus let the infant die) because the parents do not want a child with Down's syndrome. The active-passive euthanasia distinction merely encourages these groundless decisions. Rachels observes that people think that actively killing someone is morally worse than passively letting someone die. However, they do not differ since both have the same outcome: the death of the patient on humanitarian grounds. The difference between the two is accentuated because we frequently hear of terrible cases of active killings, but not of passive killings.

Rachels anticipates two criticisms to his argument. First, it may be objected that, with

Rachels anticipates two criticisms to his argument. First, it may be objected that, with passive euthanasia techniques, the physician does not have to do anything to bring on the patient's death. Rachels replies that letting the patient die involves performing an action by not performing other actions. Second, it may be objected that Rachels's point is only of academic interest since, in point of fact, active euthanasia is illegal. Rachels replies that physicians should nevertheless be aware that the law is forcing on them an indefensible moral doctrine. In "Active and Passive Euthanasia: An Impertinent Distinction? " (1977), Thomas Sullivan argues that no intentional mercy killing (active or passive) is morally permissible. However, extraordinary means of prolonging life may be discontinued even though the patient's death may be foreseen.

Sullivan argues that Rachels's example of the Down's syndrome infant is misleading, since most

Sullivan argues that Rachels's example of the Down's syndrome infant is misleading, since most doctors would perform corrective surgery since it would be clearly wrong to let the infant die. Further, most reflective people will agree with Rachels that there is no moral distinction between killing someone and allowing someone to die. According to Sullivan, Rachels's biggest mistake is that he misunderstands the position of the AMA. The AMA maintains that all intentional mercy killing is wrong, either active or passive. Although extraordinary procedures for prolonging life may be discontinued for terminally ill patients, these procedures are ones that are both inconvenient and ineffective for the patient. If death occurs more quickly by discontinuing extraordinary procedures, it is only a byproduct. In short, to aim at death (either actively or passively) is always wrong, but it is not wrong to merely foresee death when discontinuing extraordinary procedures.

In a rejoinder essay, "More Impertinent Distinctions and a Defense of Active Euthanasia" (1978),

In a rejoinder essay, "More Impertinent Distinctions and a Defense of Active Euthanasia" (1978), Rachels responds to Sullivan's charges. Rachels begins noting that Catholic thinkers, such as Sullivan, typically oppose mercy killing. However, Sullivan himself concedes that it is sometimes pointless to prolong the dying process. Rachels focuses on two specific points made by Sullivan. First, Sullivan argues that it is important for the physician to have the correct intention (insofar as it is immoral to aim at the death of a patient, but not immoral to foresee his death). Rachels counters that the physician's intention is irrelevant to whether the act is right or wrong. For, suppose two physicians perform identical acts of withholding treatment, with one physician aiming at the death of the patient, and the other only foreseeing it. Since the acts are identical, one cannot be judged right and the other wrong.

Second, Sullivan argues that physicians are justified only in withholding extraordinary procedures. However, Rachels

Second, Sullivan argues that physicians are justified only in withholding extraordinary procedures. However, Rachels argues, to determine whether a given procedure is ordinary or extraordinary, we must first determine whether the patient's life should be prolonged. Rachels continues by offering several arguments in favor of the moral permissibility of active euthanasia. The first is an argument from mercy. He begins by describing a classic case where a person named Jack is terminally ill and in unbearable pain. Jack's condition alone is a compelling reason for the permissibility of active mercy killing. A more formal utilitarian version of this argument is that active euthanasia is morally permissible since it produces the greatest happiness. Critics have traditionally attacked utilitarianism for focusing too heavily on happiness, and not enough on other intrinsic goods, such as justice and rights.

Accordingly, Rachels offers a revised utilitarian version: active euthanasia is permissible since it promotes

Accordingly, Rachels offers a revised utilitarian version: active euthanasia is permissible since it promotes the best interests of everyone (such as Jack, Jack's wife, and the hospital staff). Rachels also argues that the golden rule supports active euthanasia insofar as we would want others to put us out of our misery if we were in a situation like Jack's. A more formal version of this argument is based on Kant's categorical imperative ("act only on that maxim, by which you can at the same time will that, it should become an universal law"). The categorical imperative supports active euthanasia since no one would willfully universalize a rule which condemns people to unbearable pain before death. Rachels closes noting an irony: the golden rule supports active euthanasia, yet the Catholic church has traditionally opposed it.

Written and Reading Assignment • Read the attached proxy of the Conservative Jewish movement

Written and Reading Assignment • Read the attached proxy of the Conservative Jewish movement • Please write what you personally think about this document. • Is this proxy congruent with any of the views mentioned in this lesson ?