The basic form of my question is: Is there any ethical difference between killing/letting die and assisted suicide?
I would say no. The results of the methods are the same - the only factor which could possibly cause assisted suicide to be less ethically correct would be if the concept of suicide itself is morally wrong, which I do not believe to be the case. Certainly there are many cases in which suicide is far from the best option; however, in the context of a seriously ill person seeking to end pointless suffering, it seems to me no worse than any other method of death. In some ways, it may be better. Assisted suicide can give the patient a sense of control over their death in a way that letting die or killing cannot. There may, possibly, also be less guilt involved on the part of the doctor. Of course, it is not for everyone; I am sure that many people would choose one of the other options, the ones which were explored in the text. However, I think that it is still a valid choice, as least as much so as euthanasia.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Q&A 1, First Answer
The basic form of my question is: Should a patient's friends and relatives have any say in whether the patient can be euthanized?
This is a question that I find very difficult to answer, and my views on it may change in time. However, as of right now I think the answer is no - that is, the patient should, legally, be able to make their own decision about whether or not to be euthanized. However, the friends and relatives should probably be guaranteed the right to spend at least a minimum amount of time to discuss the decision with the patient.
Two of the primary reasons that I had difficulty deciding on a point of view for this issue are the possibility of the patient using the option of euthanasia to coerce their friends and relatives into doing things they do not wish to do, and the possibility of friends and relatives guilting the patient into being euthanized. Here are examples of these two possibilities:
An old woman has cancer, which will kill her in a few years but is not currently causing her any great distress - she is bedridden and confined to a hospital, but is in no pain. Her son comes to visit her. The two people have a good relationship except that he is gay, and she is vehemently opposed to homosexuality. She says that if he does not divorce his husband and start looking for a woman to marry, she will ask to be euthanized. He now has one of two options: either give in to her coercion and effectively ruin his life, or refuse to go along with her commands and then have to live with the guilt that he may have contributed in some way to her death. Even if he thinks it through rationally and decides that ultimately it was her decision to die, and it is not his fault, it is likely that at least some residual feelings of guilt will linger due to his emotional attachment to her.
The second possibility begins the same way as the first, with another old woman with the same type of cancer. However, in this case, she has a son who is a single parent with six children. He is running out of money and refuses to get a job. Any money he obtains he spends on alcohol. The old woman's care in the hospital is expensive, and she cannot afford to give him any money. He tells her that if she does not ask to be euthanized, his six children will starve. Feeling as if she has no alternative (she cannot force her son to get a job or stop drinking), the old woman asks to be euthanized.
Both of these situations cause extremely negative consequences for at least one person. However, I do not think that either of them justify denying people the right to choose whether to continue in a state of suffering or die. Furthermore, the second situation would still be possible even if friends and relatives did have a say in the situation. Ultimately, I think the best out of bad options is to allow people to make their own decisions in this matter.
This is a question that I find very difficult to answer, and my views on it may change in time. However, as of right now I think the answer is no - that is, the patient should, legally, be able to make their own decision about whether or not to be euthanized. However, the friends and relatives should probably be guaranteed the right to spend at least a minimum amount of time to discuss the decision with the patient.
Two of the primary reasons that I had difficulty deciding on a point of view for this issue are the possibility of the patient using the option of euthanasia to coerce their friends and relatives into doing things they do not wish to do, and the possibility of friends and relatives guilting the patient into being euthanized. Here are examples of these two possibilities:
An old woman has cancer, which will kill her in a few years but is not currently causing her any great distress - she is bedridden and confined to a hospital, but is in no pain. Her son comes to visit her. The two people have a good relationship except that he is gay, and she is vehemently opposed to homosexuality. She says that if he does not divorce his husband and start looking for a woman to marry, she will ask to be euthanized. He now has one of two options: either give in to her coercion and effectively ruin his life, or refuse to go along with her commands and then have to live with the guilt that he may have contributed in some way to her death. Even if he thinks it through rationally and decides that ultimately it was her decision to die, and it is not his fault, it is likely that at least some residual feelings of guilt will linger due to his emotional attachment to her.
The second possibility begins the same way as the first, with another old woman with the same type of cancer. However, in this case, she has a son who is a single parent with six children. He is running out of money and refuses to get a job. Any money he obtains he spends on alcohol. The old woman's care in the hospital is expensive, and she cannot afford to give him any money. He tells her that if she does not ask to be euthanized, his six children will starve. Feeling as if she has no alternative (she cannot force her son to get a job or stop drinking), the old woman asks to be euthanized.
Both of these situations cause extremely negative consequences for at least one person. However, I do not think that either of them justify denying people the right to choose whether to continue in a state of suffering or die. Furthermore, the second situation would still be possible even if friends and relatives did have a say in the situation. Ultimately, I think the best out of bad options is to allow people to make their own decisions in this matter.
Glancing Ahead - Obligations to Parents
As I was reading the assigned chapters in my course textbook for this week, I glanced briefly through the table of contents and saw a chapter titled 'What do Grown Children Owe Their Parents?' I was tempted to read the chapter immediately, as it sounded interesting, but since I felt that way about many of the chapters and did not have time to read them, I decided not to do so. Instead, I thought I would write a blog post about the question of what, if anything, children owe their parents. This may be somewhat pointless, as we shall probably be addressing the topic later on in the course, with our discussion supplemented by the aforementioned chapter, but I thought it might be helpful for me to write out my opinions on the topic now, so that I would have a clear basis for possible revision later on.
So - what do children owe their parents? To be blunt, I would say nothing at all, except what (if anything) they think they owe to any other person. My reasoning for this is that children do not ask to be born, nor do they make deals with their parents to raise them in certain ways. If a child's parents are neglectful, abusive, or otherwise unpleasant, then that is very unfortunate and the child certainly does not owe them anything for that. If a child's parents are always reasonable and kind, then that's great for that child - but the parents are acting that way of their own accord, not with any (justified) expectation of repayment. Similarly, the decision to give birth to a child is made without the child's consent or input. Thus, even if the child goes on to have a wonderful life and has a great relationship with their parents, they still do not owe anything to said parents.
Having a child is effectively gift-like in nature; as the child has no input in their own creation, the parents have no right to expect repayment later on. The child cannot even choose to refuse the gift. The child may certainly choose to give gifts to their parents or otherwise help them out, but that is of their own choice and not due to a duty or obligation. As a comparison: person A gives person B a book as a gift. Most people would not consider that person B then has to return the book at a later time, or offer something equal in value to the book to compensate person A for their trouble. If person B did not want the book, but was forced to take it, then it would be doubly unfair for person A to expect something in return. If person A gave person B the book while stating that they expected to be repayed for it in future, and person B agreed, then that would be a different matter. However, without person B's agreement, there can be no deal. The book (or the child's life) remains a gift only.
So - what do children owe their parents? To be blunt, I would say nothing at all, except what (if anything) they think they owe to any other person. My reasoning for this is that children do not ask to be born, nor do they make deals with their parents to raise them in certain ways. If a child's parents are neglectful, abusive, or otherwise unpleasant, then that is very unfortunate and the child certainly does not owe them anything for that. If a child's parents are always reasonable and kind, then that's great for that child - but the parents are acting that way of their own accord, not with any (justified) expectation of repayment. Similarly, the decision to give birth to a child is made without the child's consent or input. Thus, even if the child goes on to have a wonderful life and has a great relationship with their parents, they still do not owe anything to said parents.
Having a child is effectively gift-like in nature; as the child has no input in their own creation, the parents have no right to expect repayment later on. The child cannot even choose to refuse the gift. The child may certainly choose to give gifts to their parents or otherwise help them out, but that is of their own choice and not due to a duty or obligation. As a comparison: person A gives person B a book as a gift. Most people would not consider that person B then has to return the book at a later time, or offer something equal in value to the book to compensate person A for their trouble. If person B did not want the book, but was forced to take it, then it would be doubly unfair for person A to expect something in return. If person A gave person B the book while stating that they expected to be repayed for it in future, and person B agreed, then that would be a different matter. However, without person B's agreement, there can be no deal. The book (or the child's life) remains a gift only.
Response: Speed at a Cost
In response to Raanan's post "Comic Book Philosophizing" (January 27, 2012):
I would say that, regardless of the apparent nobility of the goal proposed by the comic book character, a revival of slavery would not be acceptable. His goal (to allow people to devote their time to philosophy, science, and the arts), while admirable, is possible to achieve in ways which do not involve the suffering of massive numbers of people. Implementing his suggestion of slavery might speed up the process, but I think the cost would be too high. After all, is improving the lives of some of the human population really worth drastically decreasing the quality of the lives of others? I would say not.
Furthermore, while the character's idea of determining who has to become slaves by lottery is certainly more fair than basing the decision off race, class, or something of the sort, it is very open to corruption. Even if we were to consider utilising such a technique to achieve a goal of this sort, it seems likely that rich people would bribe poorer people into taking their places in the lottery by offering to provide for the families of the poorer people, or some people would throw off the lottery by submitting some candidates more than once, or people would attempt to pay off whoever ran the lottery... the possibilities for corruption are numerous. Also, of course, I don't think that slavery (no matter how fairly distributed amongst the population, and not even with this admirable goal in mind) is justified.
I would say that, regardless of the apparent nobility of the goal proposed by the comic book character, a revival of slavery would not be acceptable. His goal (to allow people to devote their time to philosophy, science, and the arts), while admirable, is possible to achieve in ways which do not involve the suffering of massive numbers of people. Implementing his suggestion of slavery might speed up the process, but I think the cost would be too high. After all, is improving the lives of some of the human population really worth drastically decreasing the quality of the lives of others? I would say not.
Furthermore, while the character's idea of determining who has to become slaves by lottery is certainly more fair than basing the decision off race, class, or something of the sort, it is very open to corruption. Even if we were to consider utilising such a technique to achieve a goal of this sort, it seems likely that rich people would bribe poorer people into taking their places in the lottery by offering to provide for the families of the poorer people, or some people would throw off the lottery by submitting some candidates more than once, or people would attempt to pay off whoever ran the lottery... the possibilities for corruption are numerous. Also, of course, I don't think that slavery (no matter how fairly distributed amongst the population, and not even with this admirable goal in mind) is justified.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Introduction
Hello, fellow bloggers and readers. My name is Avery, as you can see elsewhere on
this blog. I'm a freshman here at MCLA,
and come from Groton, Massachusetts. I
have always been highly interested in philosophy, and as such have chosen to
major in it. Music is also a great
interest of mine; I play the pedal harp, the electric guitar, the piano, and a
number of other instruments, and enjoy listening to a wide variety of music,
from classical to metal to Celtic folk.
I do compose some music, but am not as yet proficient enough at that to
try presenting my compositions in a formal setting. My one sibling, a younger sister, also plays
and writes music.
I am an almost-vegetarian, for ethical
reasons rather than for my health; the reason I cannot call myself a complete
vegetarian is that I still do consume shellfish. In regards to religion, I am an agnostic. My literary taste, similarly to my musical
taste, varies widely; I like many contemporary authors (Terry Pratchett,
Meredith Ann Pierce, Garth Nix, etc.) and also older authors (Edgar Allen Poe,
Arthur Conan Doyle, Franz Kafka, etc.).
I like reading mythology, drawing, and attempting to psychoanalyse
people, and am a black belt in Uechi-ryu karate.
That is all I can think of off the top of
my head which might be of interest. I
look forward to being able to participate in this class and get to know all of
you better through discussions in it!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)