The Case for Euthanasia." Analyzing Moral Issues

Leah Sikorski

Poore

Christ Centered Critical Thinking

October 16, 2014

Group 2.b.green

Annotated Bibliography

Battin, Margaret. "The Case for Euthanasia." Analyzing Moral Issues. By Judith A. Boss. 6th ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Pub., 1999. 190-198. Print. [Secondary]

http://www.customessaymeister.com/customessays/Euthanasia/15454.htm

The argument of euthanasia has been a debated subject for some time now, and is slowly becoming more prevalent in the modern world. Margret Battin was introduced as one of “The Mothers of Bioethics,” and she received her Ph. D from University of California Irvine. Her argument is important because she suggests that you should respect someone’s wish to die, also she would agree that euthanasia should be legalized. Battin supports euthanasia through the idea of mercy, patient autonomy, and justice.

Battin first talks about the moral principle of mercy. Her idea of moral mercy and medical mercy are tied together. She says, “Few things a doctor does are more important than relieving pain.” She thinks that a doctor can end someone’s life as long as it relieves pain and suffering and does not go against the patient’s moral standards.

Battins second argument is patient autonomy, which states that you should respect a patient’s medical decision, even if that means active and physician-assisted euthanasia, as long as it does not go against his or her moral standards or hurts anyone else.

Her third argument, justice, specifically talks about passive euthanasia. This is usually something done in someone’s last days of life, and most often patients are withheld from treatment. She says that “letting someone die,” when death is inevitable, is a waste of funds. She thinks that people with such low chances of coming back to live a full life should be killed.

 Gay-Williams, J. "The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia." Analyzing Moral Issues. By Judith A. Boss. 6th ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Pub., 1999. 198-202. Print. [Secondary]

http://reasonandmeaning.com/2015/05/18/6331/

Gay-Williams is an anonymous writer. Gay-Williams also uses three arguments to fight against euthanasia. These arguments are nature, self-interest, and practical effects. The first, nature talks about how it is a person’s nature to stay alive. Gay-Williams believes that euthanasia is against our instinct to try our best to sustain life. Because we are competitive by nature it is also another way euthanasia goes against what we naturally try to due.

 The second argument is self-interest. Williams says that although modern medicine is better than it has ever been that it is still possible for doctors to make a misdiagnosis, and that misdiagnosis could lead to a loss of an innocent life. This means that if a patient believes in the misdiagnosis then you could die for no reason. Also, the patient ends life abruptly then they could be missing the chance for God to do a miracle.

Practical effects are also a big argument that he has against euthanasia. He believes that if euthanasia was made legal that doctors and nurses might not treat patients as well as they could, or they might pressure patients to consider euthanasia. Also, doctors and nurses may not try as hard to save them during life or death situations, because they might think keeping them alive might be an inconvenience to them.

Meilaender, Gilbert. "Suicide and Euthanasia" The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. By John Frederic. Kilner, Arlene B. Miller, and Edmund D. Pellegrino. Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster, 1996. 96-104. Print.

http://tylerholloway.net/review-bioethics-by-dr-gilbert-meilaender/

Gilbert Meildander was the editor of Oxford’s Handbook of Theological Ethics. He points out that Christians should not participate in euthanasia. We are created in God’s image, and we are his. If we are His and we commit suicide or participate in voluntary euthanasia that means we are accepting ourselves as our own creators, and that also means that if someone else is ending our lives they are acting as Lord over us. We are created with free will, but that does not mean we are not God’s. We must respect him as Lord, and always keep in mind he has authority over us. Also, there is the belief that we must trust that God will relieve our suffering. It is a Christian view that you should maximize care and not minimize suffers, because we must trust that God can get us through anything.

Meilaender also came up with the slippery slope argument. He points out that if you believe in one form of euthanasia it will lead to another. For example, if a you allow euthanasia when it is active and voluntary, and on the terms that it is asked for by the patient if the suffering isn’t worth living with, then it could lead to blurred lines on what is suffering.  Questions will be asked like, if you accept this as permissible then where does the extent of suffering draw the line? Is mental illness also considered as a form of suffering? That is why he thinks that all forms of euthanasia are impermissible, and should not be allowed or legalized.

Meilaender, Gilbert. “Refusing Treatment.” Bioethics: A Primer for Christians. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005. 65-72. Print.

https://books.google.com/books?id=aBDDNXBLZP4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

        Gilbert Meilaender, a professor of theology at Valparaiso University, focuses his argument on one’s intentions and one’s aims. He uses passive euthanasia to explain his theory. For a brief definition, passive euthanasia is when doctors withhold treatment allowing a person to die naturally; where as active euthanasia is when you stop life suddenly by unnatural means to end suffering. For example, if a patient is suffering a great a deal, and they refuse treatment, then that is passive euthanasia.

If the patient does not intend to die, and just aims to end their suffering, then that is not suicide on the eyes of Meilaender. His idea of suicide does not include refusal or withdraw of treatment. He thinks that refusing treatment on the terms that the treatment would be useless and excessively burdensome then it is morally permissible. The term of being useless means that the treatment will do nothing to benefit the patients, and there is no hope of a full recovery. Excessively burdensome means that living would be too difficult to carry on and that extreme suffering would still occur that then the patients should also be allowed to die. However, he does point out that intending or aiming at a patient’s death is not morally permissible, and that you have to meet the two criteria for it to be allowed.  In my argument against euthanasia, the consequence of legalizing it could lead to many people being killed without meeting these two criteria, because physicains or family will not want to deal with their illness any londer.