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.