Study Guide Test 3
● euthanasia
literally, from Greek meaning "good death"
What is the proposal the abnormal fetus suggests?
"We'll make a bargain. We will say that I am to be born and operated on, in the hope of restoring me to normality. If the operation is successful, well and good. If it isn't, then I agree that I should be scrapped and make way for Andrew." - This compromise gives the best possible chance of having a healthy baby and at the same time gives the fetus all the chance it ever had of itself being that baby!
How do Grisez and Boyle define intentional killing?
(killing in the strict sense) One intends to bring about a person's death, thereby undertaking a commitment to bring this result about
● voluntary euthanasia
(with consent of competent person)
What are the 4 examples Judge F discusses?
- A baby with Down's and an intestinal blockage - A healthy, but severely handicapped child. Doctor prescribes lethal dosage of pain-killer - Terminal cancer patient. Doctor prescribes lethal dosage of pain-killer - A rejected severely handicapped child gets pneumonia. The doctor withholds antibiotics
What is the Sanctity of Life principle?
- An Ideal that underpins many of our laws - Human life has some very special value, so it's always prima facie wrong to kill - All forms and qualities of human life are equally valuable and, therefore, equally inviolable - Therefore, killing innocent humans is wrong
What are the three methods of changing the genetic composition of future generations mentioned by Glover?
1) Environmental changes 2) Use of eugenic policies aimed at altering breeding patterns (ex. Genetic counseling or even various kinds of compulsion 3) Genetic engineering using enzymes to add to or subtract from DNA
What are the 4 categories of euthanasia arguments?
1) Self-determination 2) Killing and allowing to die 3) Calculating the consequences 4) Euthanasia and medical practice
What are the three almost certain consequences of permitting euthanasia according to Callahan?
1) inevitable abuse of the law 2) difficulty of precisely writing and enforcing the law; 3) inherent "slipperiness" of the moral reasons for legalizing euthanasia
Whose interests are to be considered?
1) the interest of the (abnormal) child 2) the interest of the mother 3) the interests of the other family members 4) the interests of the medical professionals AND 5) the interests of the child next in queue!!!!
What is the note about?
A man who basically lost himself and his adventurous life because he got into an accident and is now in a wheelchair. He now has to rely on other which is the complete opposite of his fun, adventurous, independent life prior to the accident.
What example does Kuhse give to show a case where killing is better than letting die?
A truck driver is stuck in a for-certain death, trapped in a blazing truck. He asks his co-driver to kill him, to put him out of his misery.
Know the two case studies Admiraal discusses in his article?
Admiraal discusses in his article Carla, who is terminally ill with ovarian cancer, and Esther who has MS
What is their stance on martyrs, i.e., is giving one's life (for someone else or for some higher purpose) intentional killing?
Aka Admirable self-sacrifices. They don't intend their own deaths. They intend some other action, recognizing that their death is likely to follow as a side-effect. Example: the soldier who jumps on the grenade to save his fellows realizes that his actions will result in his own death. But he doesn't intend to kill himself. He intends to smother the grenade, recognizing that his death will be a side-effect of the only way to do this, given the circumstances
What is the dilemma regarding the abnormal child and the child next in queue ("Andrew")?
Andrew (the child next in queue) will only be born if the first (abnormal) child is not born (or if the abnormal child does not survive after birth) So it is in Andrew's interest for the first child not to be born
Why do many people believe that gene therapy is permissible while genetic enhancement is not?
As long as it is used to treat genetic diseases it is okay but if it is used to enhance it is bad because it is "playing God."
Why are Smith-like persons more dangerous than Jones-like persons, according to Nesbitt?
Because Smith-like persons are willing to take action to "make someone dead" whereas Jones-like persons are merely willing to stand by and let someone die. In that respect, Nesbitt argues, Jones-like persons are not more threatening than rocks or trees
Why do some people argue that it is morally significant whether germ lines are directly affected (in germ line therapy) or only indirectly affected (in somatic gene therapy)?
Because germ-line therapy is impermissible because it has an impact on future generations who can't give consent, while somatic germ therapy is permissible by law of double effect because the primary intention is to heal sick people and the side effect is passed to the next generation.
Why does Hill decide life is no longer worth living for him?
Because he can't be independent or do things for himself anymore.
Why does Callahan argue that self-determination in cases of euthanasia is different from other cases of self-determination (in other words, what makes euthanasia more problematic than, say, physician-assisted suicide)?
Because you need a third person in order to carry out your autonomy
How does Lachs answer Callahan?
Callahan has missed the personal side of this problem by focusing on abstract theories "Moral reasoning is more objectionable when it is abstract than when it is merely wrong" [386] Callahan's mischaracterization of people with terrible diseases "looking for the meaning of existence and find it, absurdly, in a lethal injection" [386] They are not looking for meaning, they want relief from their suffering!
What example does Rachels give to illustrate that the doctrine against active euthanasia lead to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds?
Case 1.1: Patient is dying of incurable cancer, in terrible unalleviable pain, subject to irrefutable imminent death. Case 1.2: A Down's Syndrome infant suffers a malady (ex: intestinal blockage) that requires a simple operation in order to live.
What does Callahan mean by the difference between causality and culpability?
Causality: direct physical cause of death ex. disease is a cause of death Culpability: Our attribution of moral responsibility to human actions ex. stopping treatment out of malice or mistake is culpable (blameworthy)
Is death always the greatest evil that can befall a person?
Death is not always the worst evil, intense and prolonged suffering can be worse.
What thought experiment does Hare envision?
Hare envisions a prenatal conversation between Andrew and his possible sibling, trying to agree on a proposal that gives the best possible chance of a healthy baby for the parents
How does Admiraal respond to the "slippery slope" argument against allowing active euthanasia?
He does not believe there is a slippery slope, since the concept of "consent" is the guiding principle and it protects patients against abuses
How does Admiraal argue that active euthanasia is not only compatible with the duties of a doctor, but sometimes required by them?
He says that doctors have 2 primary duties: 1) to restore patient to health/ease their suffering and 2) to listen to the patient and respect their wishes. So if the patient requests euthanasia, the doctor should listen to the patient's requests
How does Rachels argue that active euthanasia is sometimes preferable to passive euthanasia?
He says that once we have decided that the patient's death is what is intended, then active euthanasia is oftentimes more humane than passive euthanasia.
What is the "nasty uncle" scenario that Rachels gives and how does it illustrate his argument that killing is no worse than letting die?
Illustrates argument because both are willing to kill the child, Rachael thinks they are both equally bad.
What is Kuhse's conclusion when it comes to the Moral Difference Myth?
In some cases, killing is better for the patient than letting die.
What is the "Moral Difference Myth"?
It argues that killing is morally worse than letting die
What does Glover mean by the "genetic supermarket"?
It is his analogy for the ability to pick and choose which traits parents want their children to have
● Doctrine of double effect
It is sometimes permissible to cause a harm as a foreseen side-effect of one's intentional action, even though it would be impermissible to intentionally cause the same harm.
What is Kuhse's definition of murder?
Murder = the intentional causation of death Kuhse: including direct and indirect killings NSW: murder includes "or the things by him omitted to be done, causing the death charged"
Does Resnik believe that genetic enhancement is inherently immoral?
No
Was Dr. Arthur found guilty of murdering John Pearson?
No
Are all forms of eugenics immoral according to Resnik?
No all forms are not immoral, especially Parent Eugenics
Does Rachels agree that killing is always worse than letting die?
No, he doesn't think it is always worse. In fact, in some cases killing might be preferable
Is intentional killing ever morally permissible according to them?
No, intentional killing is immoral because it is at odds with the respect we owe to the life of such persons
Should euthanasia be restricted to those who are terminally ill, according to Admiraal? Why or why not?
No, not necessarily. The concept of "terminal illness" is difficult to define and thus should not be the guide in end-of-life decisions
Does Resnik believe that the therapy-enhancement distinction is morally significant? Why or why not?
No, the therapy-enhancement distinction does not mark a firm boundary between moral and immoral genetic interventions, and genetic enhancement is not inherently immoral
Are euthanasia and medical practice compatible according to Callahan?
No, they are not
Are the goals of medicine clearly defined?
No, they are not
What treatment was prescribed for John Pearson by Dr. Arthur?
Nursing Care only
What is Hill's medical condition?
Paraplegia
● passive euthanasia
Passive euthanasia is an alternative name for withdrawal of treatment - the doctor withholds life-sustaining treatment. Passive euthanasia occurs when the patient dies because the medical professionals either don't do something necessary to keep the patient alive, or when they stop doing something that is keeping the patient alive. The doctor may switch off life-support machines, disconnect a feeding tube, not carry out a life-extending operation don't give life-extending drugs - "letting nature take its course" (letting die- remove life support)
What does the doctrine/law of double effect have to do with this argument?
Says that it is sometimes permissible to cause a harm as a foreseen side-effect of one's intentional action, even though it would be impermissible to intentionally cause the same harm
What does Resnik mean by positive and negative eugenics?
Positive eugenics: attempts to increase the number of favorable or desirable genes in human gene pool (add good traits) Negative eugenics: attempts to reduce the number or harmful or undesirable genes (Remove defective traits)
Why does Nesbitt say that the behavior of Smith and Jones (the "nasty uncles") is equally reprehensible?
Rachels assumes that we will agree that Smith, who kills his nephew, is no worse, morally speaking, than Jones, who merely lets his nephew die. Rachels argues that if letting die were in itself less bad than killing, Jones' defense that "I didn't kill him; I only let him die" would carry some weight. So we conclude that Jones is just as reprehensible as Smith.
What is Kuhse's verdict on the sanctity of life?
She thinks that the sanctity of life ideal is problematic, because it sees all human life, no matter its quality, as sacred and inviolable. Kuhse argues that, in some cases, we need to take quality of life into consideration, especially in cases of severe impairment or profound suffering. In such cases, euthanasia might be permissible (which the sanctity of life ideal would seem to prohibit)
How does the motive of the moral agent influence whether killing is worse or better than letting die?
So sometimes killing is better than letting die IF the motive is benevolent, i.e., one intends to shorten a patient's suffering
● physician-assisted suicide
Somewhat of a hybrid between passive and active euthanasia is physician-assisted suicide (PAS), also known as voluntary passive euthanasia. In this situation, a physician supplies information and/or the means of committing suicide (e.g., a prescription for lethal dose of sleeping pills, or a supply of carbon monoxide gas) to a person, so that that individual can successfully terminate his or her own life.
What disease or handicap is the person writing the article suffering from?
Spina Bifida
What does he mean by state-sponsored and parental eugenics?
State-sponsored eugenics: the government attempts to control the human gene pool (Hitler: Top down approach) Parental eugenics: parents exert control over the gene pool through their reproductive choices (Parents make decisions for their kids
What is their stance on suicide, i.e., is suicide a case of intentional killing?
Suicide is one such intentional killing—the suicidal person intends to bring about his or her own death. So suicide is always wrong in virtue of its incompatibility with respect for the good of life. And assisting suicide will be assisting someone's perpetration of a wrongful killing. So voluntary euthanasia is wrong as well, as it's the assistance of a killing
What does the author argue in this article?
That it is difficult to make quality-of-life evaluations for disabled people; doctors are not fortune-tellers.
How is the difference between active and passive euthanasia usually framed?
The distinction between active vs. passive euthanasia is essentially "to kill or to let die."
● involuntary euthanasia
The person cannot make a decision or cannot make their wishes known. This includes cases where the person is in a coma, the person is too young (e.g. a very young baby), the person is senile, the person is mentally retarded to a very severe extent, the person is severely brain damaged, the person is mentally disturbed in such a way that they should be protected from themselves. (Without consent of competent person)
What is the difference thesis?
There is a moral difference between killing and letting die: it is morally worse to kill someone than to let them die. - It seems that common moral intuitions favor the Difference Thesis.
● Difference thesis
There is a moral difference between killing and letting die: it is morally worse to kill someone than to let them die. - It seems that common moral intuitions favor the Difference Thesis.
● active euthanasia
Those instances of euthanasia in which a clearly competent person makes a voluntary and enduring request to be helped to die - causing the death of a person through a direct action, in response to a request from that person (Inject patient with drug)
● Triage
Triage: process of determining the priority of patients' treatments based on the severity of their condition. Traditionally, patients were divided into three groups: 1) Those who are likely to live, regardless of what care they receive; 2) Those who are likely to die, regardless of what care they receive; 3) Those for whom immediate care might make a positive difference in outcome - Only the third group would receive treatment
You should know the main points Resnik discusses in his article (e.g., the concepts of health and disease, changing the human form etc.). For instance, what is the value-laden approach to the definition of health versus the value-neutral approach?
Value-laden (prescriptive) approach: argues that our concepts of health and disease are based on social, moral, and cultural norms. A healthy person is someone who falls within those norms. Example: although schizophrenia has biological basis, some cultures view schizophrenics as "gifted" or "sacred" Value-neutral (descriptive) approach: claims that health and disease are descriptive concepts that have an empirical, factual basis in human biology. Example: a diseased organism lacks the functional abilities of a normal (typical) member of its species
What is the fundamental ethical principle Hare discusses?
When faced with a decision which affects the interests of different people, we should treat the interests of all these people (including ourselves if we are affected) as of equal weight, and do the best we can for them
How does Kuhse argue that killing may be worse than letting die in some cases, and better than letting die in others?
[She says that it depends on the motive behind the act.] By the usage of the Jones and Smith example, Rachels argues that the difference between killing and letting die is not morally relevant in itself. Thus, Rachels claims, the difference thesis is false.
What is the raison d'etre of morality?
[The reason for morality is to live together with other people in relative peace and security.] Note that Jones was perfectly prepared to kill his nephew, and would have done so had it proved necessary. "[S]omeone who is fully prepared to perform a reprehensible action, in the expectation of certain circumstances, but does not do so because the expected circumstances do not eventuate, is just as reprehensible as someone who actually performs that action in those circumstances." To think otherwise would seem to place some moral value on one person having opportunity or luck and the other not.
What case study does Kuhse use in her article?
a truck driver who shoots his colleague with a shotgun to prevent him from burning to death
● Positive eugenics
attempts to increase the number of favorable or desirable genes in human gene pool raising someone's IQ score from 100 to 120 might be considered enhancement
● Negative eugenics
attempts to reduce the number or harmful or undesirable genes raising someone's IQ score from 80 to 100 points could be considered therapeutic
● Germ-line therapy
directed at the reproductive cells, and so passed on to future generations
● Positive gene therapy
enhancement; adding desirable traits, improvements
● Eugenics
from Greek "well-born"
● somatic gene therapy
intended to affect the somatic or body cells of individuals BUT can indirectly affect germ cells as well - permissible via the law of double effect!
What is the main argument of the article?
our resistance to genetic improvement of the human race is based on a complex of different values and reasons, none of which is sufficient to rule out in principle the positive use of genetic engineering
● Negative gene therapy
therapy; getting rid of genetic diseases, elimination of defects
What is the principle of caution?
we should alter genes only where we have strong reasons for thinking the risk of disaster is very small, and where the benefit is great enough to justify the risk
● Principle of Caution
we should alter genes only where we have strong reasons for thinking the risk of disaster is very small, and where the benefit is great enough to justify the risk
Regarding the issue of causation, does Kuhse think that causation can occur through omission or only through action?
yes, it can occur through omission and action