The basic claim of proponents of the ethics of euthanasia is that human persons are consciously experiencing subjects whose dignity consists of their ability to made choices and to determine their own lives.
Bodily life, according to them, is a condition for personal life because without bodily life one cannot be a consciously experiencing subject. It means that bodily life is distinct from personal life. Thus, the body and bodily life are instrumental goods, goods for the person, not goods of the person. It thus follows that there can be such a thing as a life not worth living--one can judge that bodily life itself is useless or burdensome, and when it is, the person, i.
Today a key in fighting euthanasia and assisted suicide is better care for the sick and dying. When seriously ill patients receive good palliative care they rarely want to end their lives.
There would be the same erosion of boundaries here in New Zealand as has occurred overseas. The legalising of PAE and PAS, especially for irreversible and unbearable mental conditions, accepts that 'some suicides are okay'. This risks sending a 'mixed message' regarding the tragedy of youth suicide and creates a confusing double standard. Suicidal thoughts are usually associated with depression. Research shows that when depression is properly treated, most people change their minds about wanting to die.
Many assume that changing the law will simply allow the very small number of high-profile cases to proceed without legal objection. In fact, 'legalisation leads to normalisation' and, as has happened overseas, will lead to greatly increased numbers dying that way.
Abuse of the disabled and elderly is a serious issue in our country. The fear is that if euthanasia is allowed, vulnerable people will be put under pressure to end their lives. It would be difficult, and possibly impossible, to stop people using persuasion or coercion to get people to request euthanasia when they don't really want it. I have seen. AIDS patients who have been totally abandoned by their parents, brothers and sisters and by their lovers. In a state of total isolation, cut off from every source of life and affection, they would see death as the only liberation open to them.
In those circumstances, subtle pressure could bring people to request immediate, rapid, painless death, when what they want is close and powerful support and love. People who are ill and dependent can often feel worthless and an undue burden on those who love and care for them. They may actually be a burden, but those who love them may be happy to bear that burden.
Nonetheless, if euthanasia is available, the sick person may pressure themselves into asking for euthanasia. Family or others involved with the sick person may regard them as a burden that they don't wish to carry, and may put pressure which may be very subtle on the sick person to ask for euthanasia. Increasing numbers of examples of the abuse or neglect of elderly people by their families makes this an important issue to consider. The last few months of a patient's life are often the most expensive in terms of medical and other care.
Shortening this period through euthanasia could be seen as a way of relieving pressure on scarce medical resources, or family finances. Some people argue that refusing patients drugs because they are too expensive is a form of euthanasia, and that while this produces public anger at present, legal euthanasia provides a less obvious solution to drug costs.
If there was 'ageism' in health services, and certain types of care were denied to those over a certain age, euthanasia could be seen as a logical extension of this practice. Search term:. Read more. This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets CSS enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience.
Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets CSS if you are able to do so. This page has been archived and is no longer updated. Find out more about page archiving. Ethics guide.
Anti-euthanasia arguments. On this page Overview of arguments against euthanasia Against the will of God Sanctity of life The slippery slope Devalues some lives Patient's best interests Proper palliative care Fears about regulation It gives doctors too much power Pressure on the vulnerable Page options Print this page. Overview of anti-euthanasia arguments It's possible to argue about the way we've divided up the arguments, and many arguments could fall into more categories than we've used.
Against the will of God Religious people don't argue that we can't kill ourselves, or get others to do it. The value of suffering Religious people sometimes argue against euthanasia because they see positive value in suffering. M Scott Peck. Sanctity of life This argument says that euthanasia is bad because of the sanctity of human life. There are four main reasons why people think we shouldn't kill human beings: All human beings are to be valued, irrespective of age, sex, race, religion, social status or their potential for achievement Human life is a basic good as opposed to an instrumental good, a good in itself rather than as a means to an end Human life is sacred because it's a gift from God Therefore the deliberate taking of human life should be prohibited except in self-defence or the legitimate defence of others We are valuable for ourselves The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that rational human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else.
We must respect our own value It applies to us too. We shouldn't treat ourselves as a means to our own ends. The slippery slope Many people worry that if voluntary euthanasia were to become legal, it would not be long before involuntary euthanasia would start to happen.
A C Grayling, Guardian Devalues some lives Some people fear that allowing euthanasia sends the message, "it's better to be dead than sick or disabled". The disabled person's perspective Part of the problem is that able-bodied people look at things from their own perspective and see life with a disability as a disaster, filled with suffering and frustration. People with disabilities don't agree. Patient's best interests A serious problem for supporters of euthanasia are the number of cases in which a patient may ask for euthanasia, or feel obliged to ask for it, when it isn't in their best interest.
Lancet ; They also found that the will to live fluctuates substantially in dying patients, particularly in relation to depression, anxiety, shortness of breath, and their sense of wellbeing. Other people have rights too Euthanasia is usually viewed from the viewpoint of the person who wants to die, but it affects other people too, and their rights should be considered. Proper palliative care Palliative care is physical, emotional and spiritual care for a dying person when cure is not possible.
Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the modern hospice movement. Fears about regulation Euthanasia opponents don't believe that it is possible to create a regulatory system for euthanasia that will prevent the abuse of euthanasia. It gives doctors too much power This argument often appears as 'doctors should not be allowed to play God'.
Doctors should not be allowed to decide when people die: Doctors do this all the time Any medical action that extends life changes the time when a person dies and we don't worry about that This is a different sort of decision, because it involves shortening life Doctors take this sort of decision all the time when they make choices about treatment As long as doctors recognise the seriousness of euthanasia and take decisions about it within a properly regulated structure and with proper safeguards, such decisions should be acceptable In most of these cases the decision will not be taken by the doctor, but by the patient.
The doctor will provide information to the patient to help them make their decision Since doctors give patients the information on which they will base their decisions about euthanasia, any legalisation of euthanasia, no matter how strictly regulated , puts doctors in an unacceptable position of power.
Doctors have been shown to take these decisions improperly, defying the guidelines of the British Medical Association, the Resuscitation Council UK , and the Royal College of Nursing: An Age Concern dossier in showed that doctors put Do Not Resuscitate orders in place on elderly patients without consulting them or their families Do Not Resuscitate orders are more commonly used for older people and, in the United States, for black people, alcohol misusers, non-English speakers, and people infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus.
This suggests that doctors have stereotypes of who is not worth saving Top. Pressure on the vulnerable This is another of those arguments that says that euthanasia should not be allowed because it will be abused.
0コメント