Praxus Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 I was wondering what is the objectivist view point on non-volunteery Euthenasia? For example you are going to die so they put you to death without your permission, is this not the initiation of physical force? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amorparatodavida Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 i really have no thoughts on this, because it's such a touchy subject. i still don't know what side i'm on. by the way, yesterday night my brother called me a name and i replied by calling him a "euthanasia". it was quite comical considering he has the attitude to calm everyone, to keep peace. to put people out of their misery. he's such a kind soul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalEgoistSG Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Strictly speaking, there are six kinds of euthanasia: 1. Voluntary active euthanasia 2. Involuntary active euthanasia 3. Non-voluntary active euthanasia 4. Voluntary passive euthanasia 5. Involuntary passive euthanasia 6. Non-voluntary passive euthanasia The two important distinctions here are the distinctions between voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary; and that between active and passive. Voluntary means that it is done with the permission of the individual involved, involuntary means that it is done against the will of the person involved, non-voluntary means that the person is unable to give or not give their permission (usually because they are not able to properly exercise their mind in making a judgment due to coma or being delirious). Active euthanasia entails the doctor actually killing the patient, whereas passive euthanasia involves letting the patient die. (This is a really fine line, some argue that there is really no distinction here). Typically, the judgments concerning involuntary active euthanasia and voluntary passive euthanasia are not controversial. Involuntary active euthanasia is the same as murder. Voluntary passive euthanasia is permitted by the AMA under certain conditions, for example, there is no way to save the patient (in such instances though doctors still try to make the patient as comfortable as possible in dying). Also, non-voluntary active and passive euthanasia are usually covered by advanced directives or a living will, in which an individual asks to be pulled from life support and allowed to die if in a coma for example. The two remaining kinds of euthanasia, #'s 1 and 5, voluntary active euthanasia and involuntary passive euthanasia, are usually the most debated when the topic of euthanasia is discussed. This is specifically true of the first one, voluntary active euthanasia. So Praxus, I am not sure which of these 6 kinds of euthanasia you were referring to with your question. Please elaborate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 I think I know what he's getting at. Supposing you end up as a vegetable with no hope of recovery. Is it morally justifiable for me to pull the plug if my intention is to put you out of your misery? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalEgoistSG Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Tom, the instance you referred to would be non-voluntary active euthanasia. In the case of non-voluntary euthanasia (both active and passive) the correct course of action is based on the existence of a living will or advanced directive, or in the case of there being no advances directives, the wishes of family members and loved ones. An advanced directive/living will is a means of establishing through a legally binding document (at least in some states anyway) what should be done if one were to be in such a situation as you described. If a person is in such a situation, and I am a doctor, I should follow the wishes of the person's advanced directive/living will. It would absolutely be wrong for me to pull the plug without reference to any of these things. If no such thing exists, that would be a more difficult question. I would suppose then that the choice of pulling the plug or not would either not be given to anyone, or deferred to a close relative (such as spouse, parent, or sibling). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praxus Posted April 1, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 I know in the Netherlands they will sometimes pull the plug if they deem the patient is suffering. I am talking about invulentary euthenasia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalEgoistSG Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 Praxus, I have a problem with involuntary euthanasia (both active and passive). It deprives the individual of their life without having the ability to choose to do so. Because of the fact that it violates the ability for an individual to choose their own actions (as long as they do not violate the rights of others of course), I am against involuntary euthanasia (active and passive). Keep in mind however, that the category of involuntary euthanasia presupposes that the patient has the ability to make a choice. If the patient is incapacitated and does not have the ability to choose, that would fall under nonvoluntary euthanasia and would be a different matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buiq Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 Hi: Regarding active or passive euthenasia, by choosing not to act is an act? Q Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
java drinker Posted December 5, 2004 Report Share Posted December 5, 2004 I know in the Netherlands they will sometimes pull the plug if they deem the patient is suffering. I recently heard that some hospitals in the Netherlands will euthanize babies who are born with birth defects severe enough to make them incapable of an existence that can be termed human in any true sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
java drinker Posted December 5, 2004 Report Share Posted December 5, 2004 I have a problem with involuntary euthanasia (both active and passive). It deprives the individual of their life without having the ability to choose to do so. I assume that if a person has previously made a "living will" giving another person permission to make a life and death decision then you would classify that as "voluntary". Morally, there may a borderline case where a person's wishes were clear but were not documented in a legal way. But, that's a borderline case. What I understand you object to is a situation where a person's past wishes are unknown and cannot be ascertained. I agree with you that in such a case the moral thing would be to use the person's personal estate to keep them alive. I say "personal" because the spouse may have other wishes, and is entitled to keep her share of the money. Other than the personal estate, some chartities will probably be willing to foot the rest of the bill to keep the person alive. However, if the personal estate is exhausted and no charitable funds are available, who should support this person's life? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 5, 2004 Report Share Posted December 5, 2004 Strictly speaking, there are six kinds of euthanasia: 1. Voluntary active euthanasia 2. Involuntary active euthanasia 3. Non-voluntary active euthanasia 4. Voluntary passive euthanasia 5. Involuntary passive euthanasia 6. Non-voluntary passive euthanasia ... I am impressed by the carefully drawn distinctions that you make. This is not a subject I have paid much attention to, but nevertheless I do not ever recall seeing such detailed distinctions. Out of curiosity, may I ask: Are you a doctor or a lawyer who has some practical involvement with this subject? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurosophist Posted December 5, 2004 Report Share Posted December 5, 2004 It seems noteworthy to point out that non-voluntary is a somewhat rare instance, in that it is difficult to determine whether a person will regain function, 'pull through', or in the long run, some means of retrieving them from their coma will be made available, a la 'awakenings'. Also, it is difficult in cases where you must resort back to the patient's original beliefs, where they are not strictly stated (besides the fact that what one says months or years in advance may not correspond with their thinking in the moments or situation where they become incapable of voicing their choice). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalEgoistSG Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Stephen, Thank you for the compliment. But, to be fair, those 6 specific distinctions arose from the meta-ethics class that I was taking at the time. We discussed the issue during part of one class, had to read some essays on the issue, then wrote a paper with our own analysis. I'm not a doctor or a lawyer, but I am a philosophy and history double major in undergraduate school. This is my third year studying philosophy, and I've taken a lot of classes so far. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Stephen, Thank you for the compliment. But, to be fair, those 6 specific distinctions arose from the meta-ethics class that I was taking at the time. We discussed the issue during part of one class, had to read some essays on the issue, then wrote a paper with our own analysis. Oh, that's interesting. I hope you enjoyed the class. I'm not a doctor or a lawyer, but I am a philosophy and history double major in undergraduate school. This is my third year studying philosophy, and I've taken a lot of classes so far. I am really impressed by the new generation of Objectivist philosophy students coming up. Mostly the inevitable influence of Ayn Rand reaching the best and brightest, but ARI has also had a hand in grooming through OAC. Very encouraging! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Som Guy Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 I assume that if a person has previously made a "living will" giving another person permission to make a life and death decision then you would classify that as "voluntary". Morally, there may a borderline case where a person's wishes were clear but were not documented in a legal way. But, that's a borderline case. What I understand you object to is a situation where a person's past wishes are unknown and cannot be ascertained. I agree with you that in such a case the moral thing would be to use the person's personal estate to keep them alive. I say "personal" because the spouse may have other wishes, and is entitled to keep her share of the money. Other than the personal estate, some chartities will probably be willing to foot the rest of the bill to keep the person alive. However, if the personal estate is exhausted and no charitable funds are available, who should support this person's life? Nobody. If he cannot pay, and nobody else is willing to pay, then he will die, it's as simple as that. Nobody should ever be forced to work on someone else's behalf. On a similar note, the hospital should have a right to refuse life support to any person for any reason. Letting someone die is not any sort of offense. But fraud is, so they must make all those concerned aware of the fact they are going to refuse/discontinue life support beforehand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.