Please see .docx file for instructions. There is no writing format
A review (3 pages) of one student article from STOA-InternationalUndergraduate Journal of Philosophy (pdf attached) · Describe the philosophical issue the student paper of your choice deals with and the main arguments offered. Evaluation of the arguments is optional This serves as practice for starting with the job of generating reading notes and writing the midterm paper. ** Before starting the assignment make sure to view and understand \the difference between descriptive and normative reading notes and writing in general. YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6C38QEJsCY Microsoft Word - STOA#2 STOA 1:2 (1998) 1-2 © 1998 The Center for Philosophical Education, Santa Barbara City College, Department of Philosophy, 721 Cliff Dr., Santa Barbara, CA 93109, USA. 3 Euthanasia Shanda Hastings West Virginia University Euthanasia, the term used to describe mercy killings, is a topic that causes great controversy in the United States. Actually it is voluntary active euthanasia that the controversy stems from because passive euthanasia is legal and socially accepted. In active euthanasia the terminally ill person is given something to kill them, but in passive euthanasia the person is just left to die of natural causes. Also, no one really argues over involuntary euthanasia because essentially it is murder. Another option that is similar to active euthanasia is physician assisted suicide, which is where a patient kills themselves with the guidance of a physician. Many people argue over whether voluntary active euthanasia is moral and that even though implementing it does have its risks, that it is a better option than not allowing it to be a legal choice for the terminally ill. The first argument that I will propose (Argument A) is that voluntary active euthanasia is moral. I believe that Dan W. Brock sets forth a great argument defending this belief in the article "Voluntary Active Euthanasia". Brock defends the morality of voluntary active euthanasia with the same reasons that are given when explaining the right to refuse medical treatment. These two reasons are autonomy and well-being. Autonomy means that on is self-governing within the limits of justice. Autonomy preserves a persons sense of control and dignity. If granted autonomy then one can make the choices that will determine how one will live one's life. Autonomy essentially asks the question: who owns your life? Since we live in a free society, the answer should be the individual. By keeping voluntary active euthanasia illegal, the government is 4 STOA restricting everyone from deciding one of the most basic choices in life, whether to live or die. Well-being refers to the happiness and quality of a person's life. So if someone's life has become more of a burden and is no longer worth living, it would be acting in the interest of their well-being to let them die quickly (Brock 70-72). In fact it seems that it may be more moral to kill someone rather than just taking them off life support and then making them suffer from embarrassment and pain until they finally die of whatever ails them. Passive euthanasia is not really passive because unhooking someone from life support is in itself an action. So if you are going to perform some action and it will result in the death of the patient, then it seems to be in the best interest of the patient to allow them to die quickly if they so choose. A strong objection to Argument A is that in voluntary active euthanasia someone actually kills the patient, but in passive euthanasia the person dies naturally. So voluntary active euthanasia equals killing, regardless if the patient consents to it and killing an innocent person is intrinsically wrong. In his article "Killing and Allowing to Die", Daniel Callahan explains this idea by using moral culpability. He says that if someone actually injects a person with a lethal injection then that person is the physical cause of death. However by removing a respirator from someone that can not breathe, the actual cause of death is the disease that stopped the breathing in the first place. So if a person kills a terminally ill person without a moral right to do so, then they are morally culpable (Callahan 68). This objection depends on the idea that killing is immoral in cases of euthanasia. As I mentioned above, it seems that it may be more moral to kill someone then to just let them die, an action that doesn't have a predetermined amount of time. However, by legalizing voluntary active euthanasia it would be up to the individual to decide if they think that euthanasia is moral. If someone believes it is all right, then they have that option and if they don't then they aren't forced to choose euthanasia. This does not interfere with anyone's autonomy because people with entirely opposing beliefs on the subject are both allowed to choose what is right to them. If voluntary active euthanasia remains illegal then EUTANASIA 5 some people are not allowed to make a decision for themselves even though it does not harm anyone else's right, just because some people believe it should be that way. This goes totally against the idea of autonomy and can possibly harm a person's well-being in the process. Now, assuming that it is agreed that voluntary active euthanasia is moral, there is still the question of whether the risks of legalizing are too risky for society. First of all, I will explain the most serious risks that could result from legalizing voluntary active euthanasia. In "Objections to the Institutionalism of Euthanasia", Stephen G. Potts outlines nine risks that he foresees for society if legalization takes place. Of these nine, three of his arguments seem like they describe serious risks. The first risk is the difficulty of oversight and regulation. This worry is that if euthanasia were legalized then abuses would start to take place in situations where a large inheritance is at stake or a doctor makes a mistake in diagnosing the treatment of a patient and wants to cover his tracks. The second risk, the slippery slope effect, is very similar to the first risk. This risk deals with the fear that if we legalize voluntary active euthanasia, it will lead to nonvoluntary euthanasia. This would put all the comatose and demented patients at risk of being killed. Then it would lead to involuntary euthanasia, where the "polluters of the gene pool" or the unwanted in society will be killed against their will. The third valid risk is pressure on the patient. There is a fear that if euthanasia were legalized, that the patients would feel that they are a burden to their family and would be more likely to pick euthanasia, not because they want to, but because their family is pressuring them. A final serious risk is cost and benefits. This worry can be taken two ways. Potts argues that the poor have the most to lose by legalizing euthanasia because it is cheaper (Potts 73-77). In the decision of the court case Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington, while Judge Noonan explains the decision in a case about physician assisted suicide he also makes a great argument about costs and benefits. He argues that because the poor are given less money for health care, they are less likely to have their pain alleviated. So for them euthanasia would end up being chosen more 6 STOA often, so that they could finally be relieved from the pain that those more well off would not have to deal with (Noonan 100). Since these risks are just probabilities of what could happen and not facts, it makes it difficult to know for sure whether the pro- legalization or anti-legalization advocates have a better argument. However, I argue (Argument B), that with thorough government regulation the risks that legalization causes can be greatly reduced. So much in fact that not legalizing voluntary active euthanasia would be a greater risk of autonomy and well-being then keeping it illegal. If the government came up with thorough regulations, voluntary active euthanasia would not be a serious threat to society. In all of the risks that were mentioned earlier, they all stem from a problem of enforcement. The problem of oversight, regulation, and slippery slope is that the power to kill will be abused. The people who would suffer would be the incompetent or the unwanted people of society. Also the fear that euthanasia could be used to hide mistakes of doctors or for financial gain of family members falls into this category. The regulations that Oregon enacted in Measure 16 (Mappes 60) in favor of physician assisted suicide are a great starting point to counter these abuses. By taking this measure and changing it to fit with voluntary active euthanasia the requirements would be: 1) that the patient must give an oral request and reiterate that request fifteen days later, and would also require a written request that is witnessed by two witnesses. 2) Before killing the patient 15 days must pass after the oral request and 48 hours after the written request. 3) The attending physician must inform the patient of all choices available and I would add that a lawyer be present during this period and during the signing of the written contract to safeguard the doctor. 4) There must be a second opinion from another doctor who would also reiterate all the options. 5) It must be clear that the request is voluntary and was made by a patient capable of decision making(for example, not someone clinically depressed). I would also add that all the steps involved be video recorded for proof that the doctor followed all the regulations. 6) Another stipulation that I would add would be that at least two family members be notified of the decision, to make sure the doctor is not persuading the patient unfairly. 7) Of course the death would have to be reported to the EUTANASIA 7 proper authority and an autopsy could always be available if necessary. These stipulations will check that there isn't pressure from one person that may cause the patient to do something that they don't want to do by forcing many different individuals to be involved. The last two risks not covered by