Abstract
There are 4 main arguments for euthanasia: (1) arguments appealing to consistency (e.g., from passive to active euthanasia); (2) the argument from respect for autonomy; (3) appeals to justice; and (4) the argument from interests (mercy or relief of suffering). I will argue that only the last is directly relevant to active euthanasia as a medical intervention, though arguments together from autonomy and justice can in practice (through the backdoor) provide a ground for voluntary active medical euthanasia (AME).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It is in this sense that there is a relevant moral distinction between intended and foreseen effects. If I give the one magic life-saving bullet to A rather than B because A will live longer, or because A has had a rougher ride through life, or the coin fell in A’s favour, I am not saying that I intend B to die. That at least one dies is an inevitable consequence of whatever is done. I am intending to bring about the most just state of affairs. This is quite different from the usual way in which the distinction between intention and foresight is drawn: a doctor administers a lethal dose of morphine intending to relieve suffering but foreseeing that it will kill the patient. In this case, a death is not an inevitable consequence of whatever is done.
- 2.
Thanks to the Editors for raising this objection.
- 3.
This is Dominic Wilkinson’s objection.
- 4.
Thanks to Dominic Wilkinson for this example.
- 5.
- 6.
I am not sure whether pain is bad in itself, or bad because of the way it affects a life in the other ways.
- 7.
Thanks to Dominic Wilkinson for this point.
- 8.
Thanks to Dominic Wilkinson for this example.
References
Battin, Margaret Pabst. 1994. The least worst death. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gillon, Raanan. 1985. Philosophical medical ethics. Rights. British Medical Journal 290: 1890–1891.
Hope, Tony, Julian Savulescu, and Judith Hendrick. 2003. Medical ethics and law: The core curriculum. London: Churchill Livingstone.
Kahane, Guy, and Julian Savulescu. 2009. The welfarist account of disability. In Disability and disadvantage, ed. Adam Cureton and Kimberley Brownlee, 14–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kuhse, Helga. 1992. Quality of life and the death of “Baby M”: A report from Australia. Bioethics 6: 233–250.
Mill, J.S. 1900. Principles of political economy. New York: P. F. Collier and Sons.
Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rachels, James. 1975. Active and passive euthanasia. New England Journal of Medicine 292: 78–80.
Rachels, James. 2007. The morality of euthanasia. In The right thing to do, ed. James Rachels and Stuart Rachels, 151–155. New York: McGraw Hill.
Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Savulescu, Julian. 2014. A simple solution to the puzzles of end of life? Voluntary palliated starvation. Journal of Medical Ethics 40: 110–113.
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter F., and Franklin G. Miller. 2013. What makes killing wrong? Journal of Medical Ethics 39: 3–7.
Verhagen, A.A. Eduard. 2013. The groningen protocol for newborn euthanasia: Which way did the slippery slope tilt? Journal of Medical Ethics 39: 293–295.
White, Ben, Willmott Lindy, and Julian Savulescu. 2014. Voluntary palliated starvation: A lawful and ethical way to die? Journal of Law and Medicine 22: 376–386.
Wilkinson, Dominic, and Julian Savulescu. 2011. Knowing when to stop: Futility in the ICU. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology 24: 160–165.
Wilkinson, Dominic J.C., and Julian Savulescu. 2012. Should we allow organ donation euthanasia? Alternatives for maximizing the number and quality of organs for transplantation. Bioethics 26: 32–48.
Wilkinson, Dominic J.C., and Julian Savulescu. 2014. Disability, discrimination and death: Is it justified to ration life saving treatment for disabled newborn infants? Monash Bioethics Review 32: 43–62.
Willmott, Lindy, Ben White, Malcolm K. Smith, and Dominic J.C. Wilkinson. 2014. Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in a patient’s best interests: Australian judicial deliberations. Medical Journal of Australia 201: 545–547.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Savulescu, J. (2023). Autonomy, Interests, Justice and Active Medical Euthanasia. In: Cholbi, M., Varelius, J. (eds) New Directions in the Ethics of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. The International Library of Bioethics, vol 103. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25315-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25315-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-25314-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-25315-7
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)