It satisfies neither side in the debate and there is therefore always a temptation to try to disturb the equilibrium and get a little more; and a possible lingering suspicion that that is exactly what the other side will try to do. The third problem is that any move from the now prevailing status quo in most countries, i. For such and opponent there is nothing to be gained in the move itself and the only incentive to agree to disagree is if it is believed that the legal position after agreeing to disagree will be more restrictive than any position that would be reached without agreeing to this form of accommodation.
It has been reached in a specific societal context and there is evidence that what the Dutch have agreed to disagree about has changed over time. It is not obvious that other societies can reach the same kind of accommodation in one single step. It furthermore requires the philosophical proponents of euthanasia to acquiesce in what they see as illiberal legislation prohibiting euthanasia in circumstances where it should be allowed; and it requires the philosophical opponents of euthanasia to accept that a kind of killing they think is profoundly unethical should be allowed in law.
Let us in passing note that any call for the exclusion of metaphysical commitments from ethical debates about human life and death is potentially highly problematic. First because every participant in the debate has metaphysical commitments that influences their position and second because the exclusion of metaphysical commitments from the debate is likely to be a bigger burden for some participants than for others.
Even mere decriminalisation of euthanasia by medical doctors could be seen as conveying some form of social acceptance by classifying the act as a medical act and thereby lending it some of the lustre if such lustre exists of medicine and the medical profession.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author s and source are credited. Skip to main content Skip to sections.
Euthanasia: Right to life vs right to die
Advertisement Hide. Download PDF. Euthanasia: agreeing to disagree? Open Access. First Online: 31 July Agreeing to disagree and deep value conflict Within a modern liberal society it is arguable that the best way of resolving policy differences is through some form of deliberative democracy. There are circumstances where disagreements about values are likely to generate irresolvable standoffs. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author s and source are credited.
News Letter, Guttman, Amy. In A companion to contemporary political philosophy , ed. Goodin, and P. Pettit, — Oxford: Blackwell.
- The Complete Massage Therapy Career Guide - The Most Comprehensive Resource for a Successful Career in Massage Therapy;
- Navigation menu.
- Gluten-Free in Five Minutes: 123 Rapid Recipes for Breads, Rolls, Cakes, Muffins, and More;
Google Scholar. Guttman, Amy, and Denis Thompson. Moral conflict and political consensus. Ethics 64— CrossRef Google Scholar. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Australia outlaws pro-euthanasia TV advert
Journal of Philosophy — In Scratching the surface of bioethics, eds M. Takala, 47—56, Amsterdam: Rodopi. Policy making in pluralistic society. In Oxford handbook of bioethics , ed. Steinbock, — Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huxtable, Richard. Euthanasia, ethics and the law—from conflict to compromise.
London: Routledge-Cavendish. McCarthy, Thomas. Legitimacy and diversity: Dialectical reflections on analytical distinctions. Cardozo Law Review — News Letter. Rawls, John. New York: Columbia University Press. Woods, John. Privatizing death: Metaphysical discouragements of ethical thinking.
Midwest Studies in Philosophy — And yes, oh yes, I want you to have it there - in your hands. Complain about this comment Comment number 6. I agree with much that SheffTim writes in 2. My mother suffered a slow death from inoperable cancer at a relatively young age. As SheffTim says, the dying is the unknown quantity that we mostly fear. I understand all the great concerns there are about euthanasia, the many checks and balances that would be necessary to eliminate all risk of abuse, but I am most anxious about unnecessary pain and suffering. The key word is "unnecessary".
However, I am also aware that current medical science is hitting on snags over "vegetative states", whereby some people appearing comatose and often relying on artificial life support, may actually be contactable and able to communicate. In my view some of this blurs the line between subconsciousness and consciousness, in much the same way that deep hypnotic trances do. Following from this are myriad questions and possibilities about the potential of our own minds to survive when all else appears to fail.
It also establishes hypnotism as a very valuable tool in medical science, one which is ignored in spite of doctors being trained to use it.
BBC News Navigation
My current vantage point is that the individual, capable of making a choice, should have that choice heard and it would be dangerous to prevaricate simply by rote. We must remember that just because something is there does not mean every person will choose to use it. If we seek to protect individuals from pressure either way then we have a system that could work and it is at least worth having a deeper discussion about.
Complain about this comment Comment number 7. I am 73 years old with a Neuropathy apparently not "Terminal. Euthanasia is open to the rich already, one day it must be open for all. It would save the NHS. Complain about this comment Comment number 8. I am non-religious and I am definitely against euthanasia and assisted dying being facilitated in law. Whilst I have great sympathy for those caught up in the moment, spare a thought for those who for one reason or another are wards of court or not considered to be in charge of their own facilities, these people have life choices made for them ostensibly in their own best interests.
Allowing euthanasia opens the door for the state to apply legally sanctioned death to those deemed not fit to make their own decisions. The deliberate taking of someones life should be unlawful, this means that in every instance there will be a judicial process after the fact. It may be the case that seeing a loved one suffering so much had impaired your judgement so much that at the time you were 'not of balanced mind' and so a charge of manslaughter rather than murder could be levelled.
The Judge who passes sentence must look at punishment for the offence, protection of the public in future from the offender and the rehabilitation of the offender back into society. There is nothing stopping the Judge from deciding in a particular case, eg a wife assisting her terminally ill husband of 40 years, that she had been punished enough by having her life partner suffer so much and then be parted from him, she is unlikely to re-offend and so there is no real future danger to the public and the Judge could order that as part of her rehabilitation that she be supported as she is now alone.
In another case the Judge could decide the motivation was nefarious and apply the penalties accordingly.
Each and every case is different and must be individually Judged upon its own merits. State sanctioned euthanasia is the thin end of a very dangerous wedge. Complain about this comment Comment number 9. If I am suffering pain and anguish caused by incurable illness, I hope I will be allowed to end my life in a dignified manner and if this means I require assistance then those who provide it should be free from any threat of legal retribution.
The key is informed consent. As long as I can assure at least two doctors I am fully aware of my condition and its prognosis, and I am mentally competent then I should have the right to end my own existence.
And religion should have no part to play in my decision. The Abrahamic religions at least I lack enough detailed knowledge of others are just a set of man made rules created over the last two thousand years using psychological tricks group peer pressure etc.
Sadly in modern times the best that can be said of the proponents of these religions is that they are misguided. Complain about this comment Comment number A none religious moral argument about this issue can be developed in this way using the ideas of Kant. He said that you could only have moral justification for action if that justification could be applied universally to the action And this had to be supported treating people as ends in themselves and not as means Killing people can be held to be universally wrong indeed some would extend this to some animals.
Certainly the second second rule would prevent killing being justified by any benefit to the killer materially or psychologically. It must be done in cold blood. You can ask then are there any circumstances etc that would justify the reframing the universal law to account for particular circumstances. This depends on whether suicide is a morally permissible action.
But usually the augment moves on to bring in the progress of their life, and to transfer the accountability to doctors etc who will say whether or not their condition can be alleviated. Utilitarian arguments about calculating the greatest good to the greatest number are not permitted here. They rapidly lead to some sort of economic calculus which end up asking about the costs of looking after people in general.
Aldous Huxley 75 years ago satirised this sort of rationalism in 'Brave New World' … everyone was killed at 60! Some of Amis's arguments suggest this sort of approach. For the religious the second part of the Decalog suggest the universal law is 'do not harm people' but most people I think hold it to do as you would be done by which makes is particular to a person rather than to all.
In an ideal world, we would all die happily in our sleep. It's not an ideal world. Some people are obliged to suffer terribly before their ultimate demise. This is essentially the problem. People are viewing the curent debate as 'pro' and 'anti' but it is not. It is for change or for the status quo - because, currently, we are not allowed legally to help anyone we love die if they ask us to. Mr Gosling claims he killed his partner out of love.