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