ipl-logo

Peter Singer Vs. John Keown: Euthanasia?

873 Words4 Pages

Peter Singer vs John Keown: Euthanasia? Peter Singer and John Keown are two notable figures who offer contrasting views regarding euthanasia. Peter Singer is an Australian ethical and political philosopher, John Keown is a legal scholar and Christian ethicist (Encyclopdia Britannica). The core area of disagreement between these two figures lies in personal autonomy. Singer believes personal autonomy justifies euthanasia, while Keown believes personal autonomy is irrelevant to the issue, and thus fails to justify euthanasia. The following essay will present each view, compare them, then end with my own personal opinion on which view I believe is best. Singer's View Singer's main justification for euthanasia can be seen in the following quote. …show more content…

Keown explains “no line can in principle be drawn between voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia because the principle which seeks to justify the former also justifies the latter. What is the principle of a symposia? It is not, as is often claimed by campaigners for voluntary euthanasia, respect for personal autonomy. For no responsible doctor would kill a patient just because the patient requested it any more than the doctor would remove an organ just because the patient requested it. The patient's request merely triggers the doctor's judgement that death would (or would not) be a "benefit" for the patient. In other words, the patient proposes, but the doctor refuses. So, when all the rhetoric about patient autonomy is stripped away, the underlying principle which seeks to justify even voluntary euthanasia is that doctors can make a judgement that certain patients are better off dead. And, if such a judgement can be made in relation to a competent patient, there is no reason in logic why it cannot be made in relation to an incompetent” (Keown, 1997). Here, I believe Keown makes the point that ultimately, personal autonomy does not matter because the decision to euthanize always lands in the hands of the doctor. The patient can only express what their current desire is, but it is the doctor who ultimately must apply the most difficult judgement, that a patient is or is not ‘better off dead’. So to justify both voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, one should defend the premise that a doctor is able and should have the authority to make this decision - to decide which patient is better off alive or dead. My

Show More
Related
1039 Words | 5 Pages

If this same practice is put into use in the context of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, a line can be drawn to prevent undesirable consequences stemming from a philosophical

Read More
1246 Words | 5 Pages

Commentary On A Medical Dilemma Physician-assisted suicide is a large moral controversy in the medical field. Jukka Varelius explains the key points about the dilemma on whether medical patients should have the right to ask doctors to terminate their lives, in order to end their suffering. In “Voluntary Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide, and the Right to do Wrong”, the author addresses how assisting suicide is morally wrong in our society, but yet patients insist that they have the moral right to end their lives if they are in agony and facing significant torment due to their ill status. Jukka, in his point of view, outlines the multiple problems that go along with the main conflict, such as should a doctor be forced to end a suffering patient’s life even if the physician does not wish to do so and should the patient have the ability to ask for euthanasia even if there is still a possibility that the patient’s status can improve. Mr. Varelius does a successful job portraying the key points in this conflict, but does not strongly support any side in the

Read More
275 Words | 2 Pages

In, Practical Ethics, Singer talks of taking the life of a suffering human being who is incurable and has little to no chance of surviving; euthanasia. Singer sticks to his argument on voluntary euthanasia mainly on the preference of the person suffering. Singer discusses how a person is a self conscious, rational being and can surrender their rights if they please to. So he goes on to argue that if one chooses to surrender their rights to euthanasia we shall asist them in doing so. So although killing someone is morally wrong, it is even worse not to if asked in assistance to voluntary euthanasia.

Read More
336 Words | 2 Pages

A main point of opposition to my support of Euthanasia is the fact that assisted suicide isn’t therapy or an efficient solution. Many believe physicians should not allow permanent death as an option. This issue also pressures sick people to end

Read More
1399 Words | 6 Pages

The literature available comes in journals, books and reports. However, due to its emotional nature, it is difficult to find sources that are impartial to the debate; which means most of the literature is either for or against. Luis Kutner’s (1969) papers published in academic journals give a historical and empirical account of the debates surrounding euthanasia, focusing on the legalities of the subject with grounding in the work of Thomas Hobbes. Clare Andre and Manuel Velazquez (1987) offer a more moral argument based on the idea that all individuals have the moral right to make their own choices and the work of David Benatar (2010), a professor of philosophy, considers whether we should even have a legal right to die concluding that “it is a violation of a person ’s right to liberty to force them to endure a life that they have reasonably judged to be unacceptable” (p3).

Read More
516 Words | 3 Pages

I am writing to you today to inform you of my views on the legalization of euthanasia. I inform you that I have read the article in The Independent, written by Jerome Taylor, and will also refer to the subject of it, Tony Nicklinson. I believe that if euthanasia was legalised, it should only be a controlled procedure, with strict guidelines such as the patient proving that they have sufficient mental capacity to make their own choices, and to be able to give a reason why they should be euthanized, and how they should be euthanized. Others in favour of my argument believe that our society should allow those who wish to die, yet do not have the capacity to kill themselves, should be allowed to die with dignity and without having to experience pain. I fully agree with this statement because in the article written by The Independent, a victim of locked-in syndrome known as Tony Nicklinson wishes for the doctors to euthanize him, as he physically cannot kill himself, which directly correlates to the point made above, as he wished to be euthanized by the doctors without them having to be prosecuted.

Read More
1032 Words | 5 Pages

The first argument presents itself as a justification for why Euthanasia is seen as morally permissible in the case of performing Euthanasia on a patient who is at the late adulthood stage of life. The author of this article, Charles Camosy, explains and challenges this argument. 1) the duty to die increases as one gets older 2) which means that as we live longer, one’s family could be susceptible to having to pay large amounts of healthcare expenses 3)Therefore, an older adult who is near death, should autonomously chose Euthanasia as a solution (Camosy, 2014). This argument stems from Camosy’s explanation of the autonomous argument of Euthanasia, that as humans, we have a right to be free from pain and suffering.

Read More
965 Words | 4 Pages

From the perspective of autonomy and beneficence, assisted suicide will give patients the right in choosing to end their suffering and dying with dignity (citation). In support of PAS, some emphasise the principle of consequentialism, although the patient dies, the pain and suffering is reduced, medical cost is minimised which allows the healthcare system to utilise resources effectively and efficiently towards a greater number of people. In addition, a consequentialist would argue the current laws are causing more harm than good as currently it is estimated that 300-650 terminally ill patients commit suicide with 3000 to 6500 attempting to do so in the UK (citation). It is important to note that despite the current laws, some critically unwell patients are making decisions to end their lives, in a way that is neither humane nor painless. The current laws force the unwell to end their lives alone, without any medical supervision and methods of a painless death.

Read More
1951 Words | 8 Pages

The Researchers’ actions were motivated by their own scientific curiosity rather than taking actions that were in the best interest of their patient’s well-being. Similarly, voluntary euthanasia also raises ethical concerns about balancing the patients right to autonomy with the obligation of healthcare professionals not to do harm. Similarly, Singer, in his article "Voluntary Euthanasia: A Utilitarian

Read More
1242 Words | 5 Pages

Euthanasia, a sensitive topic for most; some are for it, some are against it. The issue that is presented in James Rachel’s “Active and Passive Euthanasia” is an attempt to determine if assisted death is morally acceptable or flat out immoral. This controversial topic is a subject that comes up frequently in the medical field. Should one be able to self inflict death? Some say it is morally wrong while others believe otherwise.

Read More
674 Words | 3 Pages

Therefore, patients should not be given the right for voluntary active euthanasia because by having more options, it creates new obligations that in turn limits the desirable choices the patient can make and infringes upon the autonomy that is so

Read More
442 Words | 2 Pages

In his essay on euthanasia Callahan describes the act of euthanasia as a form of what he would call “private killing”, instances where the death of a person, inflicted by another person, were agreed upon by those two persons in a private setting apart from any legal or civil authority. Callahan mentions dueling, a form of prearranged combat between two individuals to settle private disagreements, as another form of these private killings. Euthanasia falls into the category of private killing in that it involves two parties, a doctor and a patient, and the contract to end one’s life, the patients, is agreed upon by the two parties in private, without the actual involvement of any public authorities. It is this lack of involvement by public authorities that Callahan claims I wrong with these contracts between doctors and patients.

Read More
560 Words | 3 Pages

The ability to freely choose one’s own death if they experience any sort of pain is still an issue revolving around the concept of euthanasia (Benatar, 2011). The notion of freedom is of great importance to many people, where denying someone’s right to life causes restrictions to one’s freedom (Benatar, 2011). The restriction of freedom is followed by the intent of forcing someone to live their life when they don’t want to (Benatar, 2011). “This imposes a terrible burden either on those who are consequently forced to continue living when they would rather die, or on those who defy the law to provide the desired assistance.” (Benatar, 2011).

Read More
947 Words | 4 Pages

Justification can be seen in the argument; Agony is bad; when life is agony, death becomes more coveted; and by asking another person to consciously take away life when it is agony (euthanasia), one is asking for help in reducing agony; so therefore, euthanasia

Read More
1266 Words | 6 Pages

They can point to the fact that if the patient was not in pain then they would want to stay alive as long as possible even though they are terminally ill therefore we ought to morally reject doctors participating in euthanasia since the patient's judgment is clouded by the pain they are in. We can not ignore the fact that pain can cause patients to be more desperate to end their situation and if their pain were to subside they may not want to end their life so early. Though we can acknowledge that “fully reliable pain control is a myth” (Battin 1987, 63) meaning for most patients there is no way to thier relieve pain enough where their judgment is no longer clouded. As discussed previously it is the doctor's least disputed moral obligation is to provide pain relief and if there is no reliable pain control method and restrictions are put on what they can offer their patients then how do we expect them to uphold this obligation to every patient they come across in their career. Based off of the fact no universal and reliable pain control method exists, and that doctors have a moral obligation to provide pain relief to patients, then we ought to morally accept doctors actively participating in euthanasia as a way to provide a guaranteed pain relief to their

Read More

More about Peter Singer Vs. John Keown: Euthanasia?

Open Document