Transcript 2606 chan
Dr. Chan Ho Mun
Associate Professor
Department of Public and Social Administration
City University of Hong Kong
26 June 2009
Three
Conceptions:
• Sanctity of Life
• Inviolability of Life
• Worthwhileness of Life
Value
of human life is absolute.
Life has to be preserved at all cost.
Advocates in general would say “no” to
death penalty, suicide, abortion,
euthanasia, and warfare (pacificism).
It is difficult to ascertain the intention of
an action and the distinction between
intended and foreseen consequences is
unclear.
They
may even regard forging
burdensome/futile LST as a form of
passive euthanasia.
Human
life is a basic good, not an
absolute good.
The value of human life only implies its
inviolability which prohibits the
intentional killing of an innocent.
The English law adopts the inviolability
principle.
This principle embraces the doctrine of
double effect.
According
to this doctrine, the
inviolability principle is not violated by
an action which has the foreseeable
consequence of shortening a life if
• the action is performed out of necessity for a
good end,
• the shortening of life is not a means but only a
side effect of the action, and
• the shortening is merely foreseen but
unintended.
The
doctrine has a wide range of
applications.
The
inviolability principle does not
require preserving life at all costs.
Forgoing LST that is burdensome/futile is
not an act of passive euthanasia because
it is not performed with an intention to
shorten the life of a patient. It only aims to
promote his/her best interests and the
shortening is merely a side effect.
Labeling it as ‘passive euthanasia’ can
create a lot of confusions (see Fact Sheet
1).
The
value of a human life depends on
whether it is worth while.
Not every life is worth living. Some
patients would be better off dead and so
it is morally right to end their lives
intentionally.
Voluntary active euthanasia (VAE) is
morally justified because it relieves them
from unbearable and hopeless suffering.
Objections:
• The justification stems from the judgment that
the patient’s life is not worth living. It doesn’t
really matter whether the request is voluntary. So
why not non-voluntary or even involuntary
euthanasia for incompetent patients in the same
condition?
• Discrimination – Why is the deprivation of life
morally permissible just for this group of
patients but not others?
Replies
to Objections:
• There is no discrimination if these patients
choose to die voluntarily.
• On the contrary, not allowing them to die is
discriminatory because their special conditions
have not been duly considered.