Free Essay

Euthanasia

In:

Submitted By hotpotato
Words 6370
Pages 26
University of Warwick School of Law

Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-05
LEGAL FORM AND MORAL JUDGMENT: THE PROBLEM OF EUTHANASIA

Alan Norrie

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1577163

ABSTRACT In this paper, I want to consider the way in which categories of legal responsibility in the criminal law’s general part mediate and finesse broader moral issues around questions of euthanasia.

I INTRODUCTION

Euthanasia and its close cousin assisted dying represent extremely problematic areas for the criminal law, as the recent guidelines issue around assisted suicide testifies. The effect of these guidelines is to make no official change in the law, yet to make it clear as a matter of practice that where the law on its face has been broken, there will be no prosecution where the defendant was motivated by good moral reasons. On a legal realist vision of law, the law has changed, but on a positivistic reading it has not. What we have in fact is a rather complex and potentially troublesome juxtaposition of legal rule and administrative discretion. This balances strong social, political and moral claims in a society where there is no consensus as to the rights and wrongs of helping someone to die. In this context, the legal realist can say ‘I told you so’, and the legal positivist can cluck disapprovingly, but both miss the point, which is that the law’s messy mixing of messages in a pragmatic compromise reflects the moral impasse in a way that gives something to everyone. Thus the pro-life lobby can say that the law has not changed and no symbolic succour has been given to the pro-euthanasia view, while the latter can claim to have made headway in chipping away at the monolithic view that assisting death is impermissible. The right to lifers will be legal positivists on the matter whereas the pro-choice constituency will be legal realists. A deeper view of the matter would be to say that moral complexity is reflected in the peculiar legal complex of form and substance that the legal categories of responsibility actively permit, and which enables a deeply conflicted moral issue to be managed or finessed through the legal architectonic of the criminal law’s general part. It is such a complex vision of the criminal law’s general principles of responsibility that I wish to develop in this paper, in order to apply it generally to questions surrounding euthanasia. In thinking about the criminal law’s architectonic, I will be bringing to bear my previous analysis of the role of formalisation on the categories of criminal law, a development that begins to occur in the early nineteenth century, and which sets up a constant tension in the law between formal and substantive approaches to criminal responsibility. In thinking about euthanasia, I will be examining two different situations: those of active killing, in the sense of actually bringing about or contributing to a person’s death; and of actively promoting death, in the sense of assisting a suicide. In both cases, I will be looking at how the legal categories finesse or mediate the result in terms of reflecting an underlying moral judgment.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1577163

II UNDERLYING SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND MORAL ISSUES Before coming to the law itself, I want to expand discussion of the moral issues concerning euthanasia, about which there is no consent in modern British society (and indeed in many other western societies, though compare the situation in Holland). As already stated, this expresses itself as a conflict between the ‘right to life’ and the ‘right to choose death’ views, with the former associated with the moral claim that the sanctity of life is paramount and the latter with the view that quality of life issues are equally, or perhaps more, important. Sanctity of Life The sanctity of life view affirms the value of human life in itself in a way that trumps even claims to self-determination. Human life just is a morally foundational good, and is to be protected in all situations. The best that can be said for euthanasia is that it may be permitted in its passive form (‘letting die’) where a person is dying and life surrenders itself up to a natural process. In one form of the argument, there is a validation of human being qua species or relational being, such that there is an important sense in which a person’s life is not just her own, but also belongs to the group of which s/he is a part. An individual life has value beyond what the individual perceives it to be. There seems to me to be something important in this, and with it a ground for social intervention, altruism and care to assist others in living. Of course, at the same time, such an approach can have morally counterintuitive results: people who really want and need to die are kept alive at great pain to themselves. When that happens, the argument for sanctity of life surely becomes somewhat sanctimonious. In another form, I think the sanctity of life argument draws strength from what one can call the possibility of dystopian futures. There is a concern that once we move away from sanctity of life claims, we open the door to various dangerous possibilities. If life loses its sanctity for the terminally ill, it may also lose it for other groups where quality of life might be regarded as questionable, the long term depressed, the mentally and physically handicapped, and so on. Against this, the quality of life stance will say that where freedom of choice pertains, there is a check on authoritarian and fascist direction of programmes of compulsory euthanasia, but much would then depend on what is meant by freedom of choice and how it is ascertained. Such a view is reflected in recent government concerns that where assisted suicide is formally permitted, it will be the poor who will ‘choose’ to die, for their life chances as elderly or infirm will be much less than the those of the wealthy. Suffice it to say that there are good moral reasons of either a direct or an indirect kind for supporting a sanctity of life view. Quality of Life

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1577163

There are also, of course, good reasons for supporting a quality of life view. Despite what I have just said about the conditionality of choice, the possibility of choosing the time and place of one’s own death appears to be an important aspect of what it means to be a human being. The possibility of human agency is premised on the notion of human freedom, and the idea of freedom implies a progression of possible states in which freedom exists. We can start with a simple negative liberty, a freedom to be left alone with one’s life, but from there project out to a positive freedom to become what we have it within ourselves to be. Such freedom then entails further conceptions of autonomy, emancipation and flourishing, insofar as human life reflects the ontological potentialities in human being. The ability to choose one’s own death reflects many of these aspects of human freedom, from the simple sense that one should be left alone to do what one likes with one’s life to the more complex sense that an autonomous life would include amongst its components control over one’s death, and then on to the sense - that is surely there in the term euthanasia (a ‘good death’) - that a flourishing life is one in which one is genuinely able to register the time to go. A good life means a good death too. The Real, the Ideal, the Actual All this I take to provide morally valid reasons for permitting forms of euthanasia, both active and passive, but it should be noted that the different forms of freedom are stated abstractly as ontological possibilities for human beings, and they do not indicate that in modern western societies anything like these possibilities for freedom are available in the here and now, certainly not for all people. Nor may they be available in future versions of our society in which declining possibilities for a good life and death seem likely. The arguments concerning dystopian futures and social inequalities retain their validity, and especially the latter in thinking about euthanasia today. Where poverty is real and life chances are affected, to speak of death as the logical corollary of human autonomy or flourishing looks like the worst kind of moral idealism. That is certainly a danger, and it is a danger for large numbers of people, but it does not counter the morally realist hypothesis that human beings can under certain conditions embrace their deaths as part of a good life. What it does is set up a relationship between the morally real (what is ontologically true for human being), the morally ideal (what is true for human beings, seen as a potential that is not instantiated in a given society), and the morally actual (what is actually possible under given social conditions, in contrast to what becomes an unachieved ideal state). In practice, I think this relationship between the morally real, the ideal and the actual is seen in the tension between different kinds of death. Consider the deaths of individuals with terminal illnesses who have chosen to die, who plan their deaths, and who are able to pay to travel to the Dignitas clinic in Zurich with their close family. Everything has a measured, respectful, reflexive character. This kind of death for a few, however, should be contrasted with the concern that legalising assisted suicide

would mean that many people who are poor, who are leading lives with little quality, and feel themselves to be a burden on their families would then be pressured directly or indirectly to ‘choose’ to die. Accordingly, in all these circumstances, one might say that even if each human being has the real potential to live a good life and die a good death, that does not lead to the conclusion that the law should be changed to permit this to happen. Just as one has to balance different arguments around sanctity and quality of life, so one has to measure ethically different practical outcomes. At bottom, I think there is a question about the relationship between individual human flourishing and collective human flourishing which balances off the argument about the value to individuals of a good death, and comes out in practice as a position in favour of the sanctity of life. There is a moral sense that we cannot individually be allowed to flourish until such time as we all are able to do so, and this is reflected in the tension between sanctity and quality of life arguments in society today. But id this is so, there is also surely a moral conviction that those who really can decide to die at a time of their choosing should be allowed to do so. There is a major and a minor premise here, and they are in contradiction with each other.

III LEGAL FORM If we move from this complex social, moral and political terrain to the question of legal regulation, the first thing to say is that I think we have to understand the legal forms of responsibility that make up the criminal law architectonic in a different way than is normally the case in liberal criminal law scholarship. I will state this assertively, though I realise that the claim I make may require to be tailored differently for different theorists in the tradition. Nonetheless, at the core of the liberal tradition is a sense of a homology between moral rules and legal rules, so that, for example, the legal conception of intention shadows and is given its validity by a moral conception of intention (‘As with morality so with law’ – Duff). Now, this is not to say that liberal theory does not recognise that legal concepts are also importantly political, or that rules elaborated by a state may be different from rules elaborated by a moral philosopher. For example, in moral philosophy, there is the possibility of finegrained tuning of judgment which is not possible in law, or other (‘political’ or institutional) considerations may come into play in law that are not there in philosophy. But if that is the case, I think the position adopted tends to be that the ‘other things that come into play’ are post-hoc considerations which may temper or befoul an otherwise adequate moral understanding (e.g. ‘policy’ – Ashworth), yet still be regarded as necessary in a process of moral-to-legal translation. Then the question becomes one of controlling the extraneous post-hoc considerations in favour of underlying moral-legal principles. In the critical approach to legal formalisation adopted here (meaning an approach associated with the tradition of critique promoted e.g. by the early Frankfurt School), the idea is for a more difficult

relationship between law and morality. In essence, political demands are read into moral and legal forms from the start. Thus morality itself is subjected to a critique that says that liberal forms of freedom associated with modernity are themselves radically limited: thus Kantian philosophy’s account of freedom is in Adorno’s view irretrievably entangled in unfreedom, and becomes itself a mode of repression. This argument is probably reflected mutatis mutandis in other critical approaches to law such as those provided by deconstruction, by Foucault (but consider his late writings), and systems theory, as well as in at least the middle period Habermas writings (in the contrast between system and lifeworld). I find it often overdrawn so that, to focus on Adorno, one finds a tendency for him to damn Kantian freedom, but then at the same time to see it as expressing a valid element in human ontology that is a specific achievement of modernity. I have argued that a better view of freedom under modern conditions would have to be able to give a full theoretical expression and understanding to the ambivalence one finds in Adorno’s philosophy, and that leads me into an account of the relationship between law and morality for which I wish to argue here. In essence, I think we have to retain a sense of the possibility and limited actuality of human freedom, while recognising that this is constrained and limited under modern conditions. This view carries across into law, where the core argument is that social, political and historical considerations crucially structure the abstract nature of legal form. Modern law expresses a notion of human freedom, but one that is abstract, universal, and formalistic, and in its abstraction and universality, one that is important but also importantly limited. It is important because it articulates a general sense of individual political freedom, one that is associated with the basic idea of agential, negative liberty from interference by the state or other persons. It is importantly limited because it operates by way of a formalisation of ethical categories that fails to identify substantive moral concerns that pertain in different social contexts. It works essentially by establishing a form/ substance dichotomy at the heart of criminal responsibility, which means that criminal law forms are sought to be expressed in formal, neutral, factual, psychologistic terms. This is a prevalent and continuing way of doing criminal responsibility, and is seen for example in the ‘orthodox subjectivism’ of the textbook tradition in England and Wales. It should be noted, however, that its consequence is that a formalistic way of doing responsibility is always subject to criticism from positions that adopt a more substantive approach to issues, so that a form/ substance dichotomy, albeit one with form in the driving seat, is generally to be observed in the criminal law itself. Thus it is that legal categories always tend to ‘hunt in pairs’: intention and motive, subjective and objective recklessness, act and omission, offence and defence, and so on. The general point is that a formalistic conception of legal freedom is achieved by excluding substantive moral concerns, but these return to trouble the law. For example, the division of motive from intention is a classic piece of formalism, but issues concerning motive return to trouble legal doctrine. (They also then serve to help it out, as we shall see below).

I don’t want to labour the general argument, which has been made before; nonetheless, I think it is an important argument for elucidating how the law works with regard to euthanasia. In the next section, I will begin to explore this, but it can be noted that many of the oppositions set out above are central to how the law handles different kinds of euthanasia: the distinction between motive and intention is central to permitting certain kinds of active killing, as is the distinction between offence and defence; in the case of assisted suicide, it is motive, which plays no part in the legal affirmation of the crime of assisting a suicide, which animates the discretionary decision not to prosecute; in the case of passive euthanasia, it is the distinction between act and omission that is crucial. In all cases, there is the appearance that legal categories are functioning normally in the euthanasia context as they do elsewhere, but there is a surreptitious play on those categories which permits outcomes that are not really permitted in law to occur. What I want to argue for is a complex relationship between legal form and ethical substance. At one level, one can only be struck by the law’s moral ineptitude in its dealings with euthanasia. The abstract formalism of its categories fails to carry necessary and appropriate moral distinctions. For example, the contract killer and the mercy killer are on the face of the law both culpable, and equally so, under the general definition of the crime of murder. An illustration is the case of the doctors in the conjoined twins case, Re A. In intending to separate the twins, knowing that one is virtually certain to die, the doctors satisfy the Woollin test for the mens rea of murder. The definition of the offence having been satisfied, doctors are murderers who require a defence. Do we normally think of doctors in such a situation as murderers? At a second level, however, I want to argue that this legal formalism gives the law a certain backhanded ethical facility, in its ability to manoeuvre under cover of formality, and thereby to finesse social and moral conflicts around a contentious subject such as euthanasia. It appears to uphold the sanctity of life position, while permitting quality of life issues to have their effect under cover of formal law. Thus, Re A notwithstanding, the law of mens rea is sufficiently flexible, and perhaps self-consciously so, to permit the issue of mercy killing to be dealt with as a question of general mens rea. This allows some mercy killing cases to be filtered out and treated differently from the normal run of cases. Yet it appears as though the general rules of mens rea are applied in the mercy killing cases as in all others. The formal categories resolve the matter, without resort to substantive public declarations that mercy killing is permitted. A benign hypocrisy operates through formal law which allows society to have its cake and eat it.

IV ACTIVE EUTHANASIA (KILLING) An early flavour of the way in which criminal law categories are maintained but finessed is seen in Dr Adams’s case, where it was held that a doctor may do ‘all that is proper and necessary to relieve pain..., even if the measure ... may incidentally shorten life’. But under the law of contributory cause,

any shortening of life or hastening of death counts towards causation. To avoid the problem, Lord Devlin had resort to what he termed a ‘common sense’ view of causation. Underlying his approach, however, was a distinction between medical intervention aimed to relieve pain which incidentally shortens life, and an intervention which is aimed to shorten life. In the later case of Dr Cox, a distinction was drawn between a doctor’s ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ purpose in administering treatment. As against the incidental hastening of death pursuant to a course of treatment with the primary purpose of easing suffering, it was stated that ‘What can never be lawful is the use of drugs with the primary purpose of hastening the moment of death’. This analysis of primary and secondary purpose, however, runs up against the approach in Woollin, where any secondary purpose that has consequences that are foreseen as virtually certain to occur is promoted to the same position and status as a primary purpose. That was the background to the judge’s direction to the jury in Dr Moor’s case. There, the instruction was to consider, first, whether the doctor’s purpose had not been to give treatment to relieve pain. If it had not been, then the jury had to be sure that he intended to kill his patient, and intention meant purpose. If Dr Moor thought it only highly probable death would follow the injection, there would be no intention. The jury was offered an ‘out’ and took it, but this direction simply failed to relay to the jury the essence of Woollin, that if the doctor thought it virtually certain death would follow, he would have the intention to kill. The direction was to put it mildly highly favourable to the defendant. It led to a subsequent proposal suggested by Senior Counsel in the case that intention may be found ‘if death was a virtually certain result (barring an unforeseen intervention) and his primary intention was not purely to relieve pain and suffering but to cause death’. This is an attempt to splice together the Woollin direction and the primary purpose rule, but it is not clear that it would work, for the two parts of the test come from different moral backgrounds. One is the idea that a foreseen virtually certain consequence is ipso facto so tied to a direct purpose that it is a consequence that is owned by the actor. The other is that one’s purpose is circumscribed by one’s moral commitments, and one only owns those things to which one is morally committed. It is true that one may accept consequences which are not intrinsic to one’s moral commitment, where those consequences are themselves means to the end of that commitment but, importantly, where they are not significantly at moral odds with it. Doctors who inject a patient to ease pain and suffering are arguably in that category, for easing pain as their moral commitment as doctors is at odds with bringing about death. But, if that is the case, then one does not need the additional test of foresight of virtually certain consequences to resolve the matter: the purpose analysis will do all the work anyway. There is a problem with the formalism in the foresight of virtual certainty analysis, which is that it lacks an adequate moral grasp of what is substantively at stake. One only morally endorses those virtually certain consequences which are not at significant moral odds with what it is one seeks to do:

this is the ‘moral threshold’ analysis originally worked out by Duff. The simple view that one accepts the virtually certain consequences of one’s actions threatens to be morally over-inclusive. Woollin reflects the problem, but it also has a way out of it, in the stipulation that a jury is ‘entitled to find’ an intention to kill where it nonetheless finds that D foresaw a consequence as virtually certain. If it is entitled to find, then this is arguably permissive rather than obligatory, so it can choose not to find an intention where it finds foresight of virtual certainty. This seems to be the logic of entitlement, and it is seen in the analysis of Matthews and Alleyne which argues that Woollin did not produce a law of intention, only a rule of evidence. Of course, it is somewhat bizarre in formal terms to argue that the law has no definition of intention, but the gap may be an important one. It may do important moral work in cases where a jury does not wish to find intention. Note, however, that the judges in Re A declined to go down this route, preferring to claim that Woollin intention was satisfied in the case of the doctors in that case. This decision stands in contrast to the more flexible reading of intention permitted by Matthews and Alleyne. Underlying the legal debate in the euthanasia cases are a number of moral positions, but the signal fact in relation to all of them is that they are not part of the law. There is, first, the doctrine of double effect. This is the claim that ‘One may permit the evil effect of his act only if this is not intended in itself but is indirect and justified by a commensurate reason’ (Price). This is drawn on in some medical cases (Bland, Re A), but it is essentially problematic because it in effect permits a citizen or group of citizens (such as doctors) to second guess the formal law. It is a requirement of legal form that it apply uniformly and generally in society, and that it be clear as to the forms of conduct to which the law applies. (This is the law’s internal morality in Fuller’s terms). Double effect challenges this, and therefore is the most unlikely basis for legal doctrine. Nonetheless, I think it plainly underpins the moral calculations that go into practical decision-making in this area of the law. The same is true of the idea of a moral threshold, mentioned above. A good example of this is seen in the case of Gillick, where the doctors’ intention to treat under-age girls by prescribing contraceptive pills was held to be an answer to any offence of aiding and abetting unlawful sexual intercourse. It could hardly be denied that prescription would enable sex, but it was not part of a doctor’s role to do anything other than protect their patients’ health. Such an open endorsement of a moral threshold position would be quite problematic if it were to be extended more broadly, but somehow, it is permitted in the case of doctors. One legal analysis that can reflect the moral threshold or double effect arguments concerns necessity as a justificatory defence. The doctors in these cases are caught between conflicting duties, in that they must treat their patients even if treating them would bring them into collision with the law. They must negotiate a balance of evils (Ashworth), and hastening the death of a patient (or prescribing the pill) may involve such a balance. Against this, however, it should be noted that any general balancing of a doctor’s duty to treat a patient when compared with the duty not to kill would be hard to resolve

in favour of the doctor’s duty to treat. If the duty not to take life is, as the law claims, one of the most fundamental obligations imposed on citizens, then it is hard to see that a doctor’s duty to treat a patient measures up to it. Furthermore, the law of necessity makes it clear that this is a defence of very limited application, and not in cases of killing. Of course, Re A muddies the waters here, but it is very clear that the judges’ intention in that case was not to extend necessity to cover situations of doctors causing the deaths of their patients, but was limited to the very precise circumstances of the conjoined twins. The general problem with the necessity defence is reflected in the judges’ discomfort in Re A in formulating it: a declaration that the law of necessity goes beyond the precise facts of that case would be too open a statement that the law does permit the taking of life in situations such as that of mercy killing. Extending the law of necessity beyond Re A’s precise facts would establish the morally substantive proposition that mercy killing is allowed, but it is just that morally substantive conclusion that the law cannot draw, for it cannot go against the official position that states that killing is wrong and supports general sanctity of life. Much better to stay with the formal account of mens rea and smuggle in the morally substantive position in the interstices of that law. Ultimately, the issue that hoves into view here is the distinction between motive and intention, for motive is the ‘home’ of moral substance alongside the formalism of intention in the standard form/ substance dichotomy at the core of the law. Of course the first rule of criminal law is that the two should be kept apart. Here we are back on the familiar terrain of comparing mercy and contract killers, and affirming their equal guilt. Nonetheless it is clear that even if this is so, it is motive that makes the difference in practice in these mercy killing cases. The recent conflicting decisions in the cases of two mothers, Frances Inglis and Kay Gilderdale, who both killed their disabled adult children suggest that it is how a defendant comes across in terms of their overall persona and the precise moral circumstances in which they act and that reveal their motives that is relevant. Frances Inglis stated that she had killed her severely brain damaged son with love in her heart, yet she was still convicted of murder and found by the judge to have undertaken a ‘calculated and consistent course of criminal conduct’ and to have ‘intended to do a terrible thing’ (Guardian 21 January 2010). Kay Gilderdale in contrast was found not guilty of attempted murder with the judge describing her as a ‘caring and loving mother’, and openly questioning why she had been prosecuted for attempted murder, when she had pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting suicide. The CPS was left to assert, quite properly, that ‘the intent was clear on our evidence’ (Guardian 26 January 2010), and they were probably absolutely right in so thinking. What went wrong for Frances Inglis? It is likely that she came across as a person too caught up in her own emotional concerns to act fully in terms of what was right for her son. This is borne out by the claim of her solicitor that the defence of provocation in a situation of severe emotional stress should have been left to the jury. The hidden moral issue expressed in the language of intention is seen quite clearly in another case from a few years ago, that of Barbara Salisbury (Guardian 29 April 2004). Salisbury was a nurse on a

geriatric ward in Crewe, who was convicted of the attempted murder of two patients and acquitted with regard to two more. The general evidence was that she was obsessed with unblocking beds in the ward. She was described at trial as having a bad attitude, as upsetting and offending people, as brusque and as callous. Sentencing her for the crimes for which she was convicted, the judge stated that she had broken her duty of care and abused her position of trust ‘by attempting to hasten death’. This was contrasted by the prosecution with ‘easing the passing’, which is permissible, but it is a fine line between the two. The knife edge is seen in one of the deaths for which she was acquitted. There, she was involved in administering diamorphine to a patient and allegedly saying to him ‘Give in, it’s time to go’ as she did so. Her evidence was that her words were ‘It’s ok to go now’. Did it matter which words precisely she had used and which tone she had used them in? I think it did. Administering a pain-killing drug which will hasten death is acceptable if done in the right spirit, and the words that she spoke could have been said in a kindly or a callous way. If they were found to have been said in a kind way, it would have been a comforting, compassionate, easing of the passing. If they had been said in a callous way, the same words, and accompanying deeds, could be interpreted quite differently. A decision of guilt and innocence as to intention in such a case surely depends on the attitude or the motive with which deeds are done or words said.

V. AIDING AND ABETTING SUICIDE The same kind of juridical logic is at play in the area of assisted suicide as that of active euthanasia, though the nature of assisted suicide entails a slightly different arrangement of the categories. With active euthanasia, the main work is done by the distinction between primary and secondary purpose, though this has to be mediated through the distinction between direct and indirect intent. The extension of intention to include primary and secondary purposes in the line of cases leading to Woollin through the consequentialist approach to indirect intention presents a problem. It is

negotiated in active euthanasia cases by the moral, motive-based assertion that, though a killing may have been intended, the fact that it was carried out with a good heart or alternative intention deflects the focus from the intention to kill or to commit a criminal act in favour of an alternative intention to alleviate or bring an end to suffering. The position is slightly different as between the doctors cases and the case of a parent such as Kay Gilderdale. With doctors, it is possible to claim that treating the patient represents the primary purpose and/ or the focus of their intentional agency. With a case such as Mrs Gilderdale, what is the distinct primary purpose or focus of her agency that can be taken as the alternative to the intention to kill? It can only be a loving commitment to bring an end to suffering, but the unstated problem here is that this is essentially a more euphemistic way of speaking about what Mrs Gilderdale in fact did – killed her daughter. There is no doctor’s obligations or practices to fall back on as the narrow horizon for action which blocks the criminal goal from view. These are in

law hard cases to decide in favour of the defendant and involve a fuller quotient of jury equity than the doctors cases for that reason. Juries just have to ‘feel’ their way to a decision without the prop of an alternative distinct intention as in the doctor cases. How does it work with assisted suicide? It is also hard to see such cases as involving an additional primary purpose under which what becomes the secondary purpose of assisted dying can nestle. If a spouse helps his or her partner to travel to Zurich, or to take a dose of drugs that will kill, there is no possible argument for alleviating pain as in the doctor’s case, just as there is no plausible argument that travelling to Zurich will broaden the spouse’s horizons. The intention to assist the suicide is all too clearly visible. Presumably, if prosecutions were brought, it would be open to the defendant to simply argue the moral issue out in the open of the court room and say that s/he acted from the best of intentions, and with love in their heart. The criminal law, however, could only take so many of such cases, which presumably are more numerous than those where a parent actively kills a loved one, before a disparity between the law and the outcomes of such cases, or the scandal of the difference in outcomes, brought the law into disrepute. These are hard cases for the law to deal with because it is too clear that defendants are breaking it, and defendants have themselves got the message that this is so: hence their resort to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland. Yet, this hardly lets the law off the hook. Assisting a terminally ill sufferer to travel abroad to their death is a form of aiding and abetting in its own right, yet even before the new CPS guidelines, no one had been prosecuted for so doing. Before the guidelines were issued by the DPP, the way in which the problem of assisted suicide was dealt with was by means of a discretion to prosecute that was undisclosed. After the guidelines, of course, the discretionary basis is disclosed. In the draft guidelines, two sets of factors were regarded as germane to the decision to prosecute. One set concerned the condition of the ‘victim’, the other the position and motives of the defendant. In their revised form, the condition of the ‘victim’ has been removed from the criteria, leaving the motives of the defendant as the main factor. This was as a result of arguments that identifying certain conditions as being likely to lead to suicide would place a degree of pressure on those suffering from such conditions to think of themselves as potential suicides. In that way, it raised the substantive concern that some lives were of less value than others. It is the argument of this paper that one way of dealing with the problem of euthanasia is not to treat it in a way that confronts substantive moral concerns about the value of life. Better instead to treat it as a matter of individual choice for ‘victims’ taken in the round (i.e. without judgements based on their conditions), and as a matter of individual attitude on behalf of defendants acting out of care and love. Hence the resort to motive as the main consideration in deciding to prosecute leaves the law of assisted suicide in much the same place as the law of active euthanasia with regard to doctors and others who hasten death: it is ultimately a question of motive, regarded as a means for qualifying their otherwise clearly criminal intentions.

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Euthanasia

... INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIAN ETHICS TOPIC: EUTHANASIA COURSE NO.: RELT 255 INSTRUCTOR: KIGUNDU NDWIGA, PhD BY: CHRISTINE W. THAIRU STHACH 1511 OCTOBER 2014 EUTHANASIA 'Euthanasia' is a compound of two Greek words - eu and thanatos meaning, literally, 'a good death'. Today, euthanasia is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death - 'mercy killing,' where one person ends the life of another person for the sake of this person whose life is to be ended. Euthanasia, also refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering, and a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable suffering. It incorporates an agent; a subject; an intention; a casual proximity, actions of the agent lead to the outcome. A non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in most countries. For voluntary euthanasia the process has to:- i) Include patient request ii) Take into consideration the amount of suffering the patient is experiencing iii) Discuss and pursue alternative course of action iv) Presented to the patient all available information A person who undergoes euthanasia usually has an incurable condition. In many cases it is carried out at the person’s request but there are times when they may be too ill and the decision is made by relatives, medics or courts. Very often people will call euthanasia “mercy killing”, perhaps thinking of it for someone...

Words: 1367 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Euthanasia

...IssUEs Of EUThANAsIA: ARGUmENTATIvE EssAy Bilal S. H. Badr Naga Majd T. Mrayyan (1) Bilal S. H. Badr Naga., MSN, RN, Prince Sultan Cardiac Center in Qassim, Saudi Arabia (2) Majd T. Mrayyan., Prof, RN, The Hashemite University, Jordan Correspondence: Bilal S. H. Badr Naga., MSN, RN, Prince Sultan Cardiac Center in Qassim, Saudi Arabia Email: Bilal_badrnaga@yahoo.com Case scenario Abstract Euthanasia is one of the issues that has been the subject of intense debate over time. It has been a pertinent issue in human rights discourse as it also affects ethical and legal issues pertaining to patients and health care providers. This paper discusses the legal and ethical debates concerning both types of euthanasia. It focuses on both the supporter of euthanasia and the opponent of euthanasia. Several statements for the Euthanasia argument arediscussed: a merciful response that alleviates the suffering of patients which is sometimes wrongly perceived to be otherwise unrelievable; the autonomy in which the patient has the right to make his own choices; the regulation and legislation of existing practices of euthanasia to protect health care providers and patients. In this heated debate religious, political, ethical, legal and personal views are also included. Among all these, those who desperately want to end their lives because they simply cannot go on in any way, are the ones who suffer. Every individual or group has a different viewpoint regarding euthanasia. Euthanasia is considered...

Words: 7058 - Pages: 29

Premium Essay

Euthanasia

...Euthanasia Euthanasia - Deep sympathy for the suffering Introduction Euthanasia is the deliberate killing either by omission or commission of a dependent person for their benefit. Arguments against euthanasia claim that the concern for happiness and human life and not their obliteration is the objective of any good governance. They say that the terminally ill are people who require protection from social, economic and family pressures, and who are particularly prone to this pressure as a result of chronic depression, pain and effects of continued medication. Arguments for euthanasia say it is impossible to maintain quality of life if a patient is dead. While there have been massive arguments, debates and campaigns against euthanasia, this paper will seek to support euthanasia because of the moral issues that relate to the topic. This paper supports that when a personal is physically dead, the only reason anybody wishes to keep them alive is for their selfish clinging onto them with the hope of a miracle and the fear of closure without regard to the wishes of the person. It supports the practice of euthanasia and seeks to evaluate the reasons why euthanasia should be legalized. This paper will have a general audience because of the controversy that it sparks every time it comes up Death is a dreaded subject for all human beings because it signifies leaving the known to go to the unknown. This is the reason why by its nature euthanasia is a hugely hushed up topic...

Words: 1514 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Euthanasia

...nurses around the world have been discussing different topics to try to find cures for all kinds of health issues people are faced with. One main topic that has been discussed is Euthanasia, which is the act of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. Euthanasia is also called medically assisted suicide by a lot of people. It was also originated from the Greek language and occurs in every race of people. Euthanasia should not be forced on anyone but has good reasons in some cases. “There are two types of Euthanasia, active and passive. Active Euthanasia is death by commission. Passive Euthanasia is death by emission.” (Mcmanaman 2). Active Euthanasia is very simple from a moral point of view. It is never justified though because it always amounts to murder. Passive Euthanasia can be of good and of immeasurable value regardless of the condition of the patient. (McManaman 2). If you are not very ill or in a dying state these actions will not be performed on you, because then it will just be just like murdering a patient. Either type of Euthanasia should only be able to be legally processed. If it is not legally processed whoever is a family member of one who has been killed by it can sue whoever was given the euthanasia to kill their family member. This is a very serious and offensive case so therefore the...

Words: 1948 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Euthanasia

...Euthanasia According to Webster’s dictionary, euthanasia is “intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit”. Clearly, everybody hopes that his or her death is gentle and easy, and bypasses pain and suffering and loss of dignity. However, the question of whether people can legally passively or actively end their own lives raise many issues. Some argue that by allowing euthanasia will permit people to look down on human life, as if it is not important and can be used for certain criminal circumstances. On the other hand, others argue that permitting people to take their own lives actually maintains human dignity, since people should not have to die painful deaths. I believe that human dignity and the value of human life can best be protected and preserved by permitting people to chose to stop treatments which prolong their lives, but without legalizing the active taking of lives. The philosopher Dyck is representative of the the position that euthanasia should never be legal, because it does not entail compassion for one, or one owns human dignity. Dyck proposes an alternative moral argument to euthanasia, the idea of “benemortasia.” Benemortasia is the belief that a “good” death doesn’t need to be painless or be fully controlled by the person.. Not only does Dyck argue that our definition of good death should change, but he has multiple arguments for why euthanasia is morally wrong. First off, one who causes someone...

Words: 998 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Euthanasia

... 1 9 December 2012 Euthanasia Controversy In today’s society, health care is a major issue. Healthcare is preventions of illnesses. There have been many debates on how to solve the problem. Many professional doctors and nurses around the world have been discussing different topics to try to find cures for all kinds of health issues people are faced with. One main topic that has been discussed is Euthanasia, which is the act of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. Euthanasia is also called medically assisted suicide by a lot of people. It originated from the Greek language. Euthanasia should not be strained on a single person but could be helpful in some instances. “There are two types of Euthanasia, active and passive. Active Euthanasia is death by commission. Passive Euthanasia is death by emission.” (Mcmanaman 2). Many people make a moral differentiation between the two but if you are not severely ill or in a dying state these actions will not apply to you, because then it will just be just like murdering a patient. If it is not legally processed , this is a very offensive case so therefore the consequences will be highly looked at. The way of using Euthanasia is looked down upon because of the way it devalues human life. The Government should not have the power of making it legal to end someones life because it is such a moral issue. However, Euthanasia could be good when used...

Words: 1240 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Euthanasia

...Running head: EUTHANASIA Euthanasia: A Silent Plea for Mercy Shannon Curry University of Southern New Hampshire Professor Henson Tuesday December 23, 2014 Euthanasia: A Silent Plea for Mercy All over the world there are amazing technological advances in medicine happening every day, despite that there are neonatal patients suffering from painful life limiting medical conditions that have no treatment or cure. “Advances in medical technology make it possible to extend life, at times, the focus on ‘cure at all costs’ overshadows the obligation to provide dignified, humane, and compassionate care” (Rushton, 2005). In an effort to provide legal, humane and compassionate end-of-life care to infants, the Dutch developed the Groningen Protocol in 2003. Developed in collaboration with the prosecutor’s office, the Groningen Protocol was designed to guide a transparent medical and legal decision making process for parents and their doctors considering neonatal euthanasia (Catlin, 2008; Petrou, 2005). Neonatal euthanasia is the practice of hastening the death of a terminal ill newborn in an effort to relive their suffering.  Most countries current laws make it illegal for the neonatal population to benefit from euthanasia. Research is suggestive that albeit in secret neonatal euthanasia maybe disguised and illegally practiced around the world. Legalizing neonatal euthanasia would not only allow transparency...

Words: 2327 - Pages: 10

Premium Essay

Euthanasia

...Euthanasia/Assisted Suicide Debate Marissa Burton HCA 322 Mark Metzger April 29, 2013 Dying has become a dilemma. The act of dying has transformed in recent technological advances by making it possible not only to lessen pain but also to extend life. However, when treatment fails and modern medicine has nothing more to present to patients, they may demand for a life ending act. When patients and their family become aware of the quality of life and a great deal of unbearable pain, conflict often introduces itself between health care professionals who are trained to save lives, and patients and their families, who desire to end all suffering. According to Pozgar (2013), the focal point of this conflict is on the concept of euthanasia and its position in the modern world. The issue has been at the middle of some very heated debates for many years (p.123). Euthanasia can be defined as the act or practice of terminating a person’s life in order to relieve them of their suffering from incurable conditions or diseases. Euthanasia is also known as “the mercy killing of the hopelessly ill, injured, or incapacitated”. The dividing of euthanasia into two categories, active and passive, is for many the most controversial aspect of this topic (Pozgar, 2013). Active euthanasia takes place when the medical professional, or another person, intentionally do something that causes the patient to die. Passive euthanasia takes place when the patient dies because the medical professional either...

Words: 1984 - Pages: 8

Free Essay

Euthanasia

...look at euthanasia if positive or negative, history of euthanasia or where and how it began, what methods are generally used by nurses or doctors when euthanasia is asked by the patient and why it is an interesting research.) Here are the following ‘help’ question bases (make the nurse/doctor elaborate): 1. Pressure – dilemma 2. Situation with mercy killing applies. 3. Respondent (Ask the doctor & nurse OR 2 nurses) Hi Jessh, these are the following questions I have thought of for the Euthanasia Research Paper. Please ask the nurse more questions for you will be the one who will talk to him/her. 1. How long have you been a nurse? 2. How many patients have asked for assisted killing? 3. What are their age ranges? 4. What are the diseases? 5. Do you think you have the right to do euthanasia? 6. What methods have you done with assisted killing? 7. Do you feel pressure/dilemma while doing assisted killing? Can you explain this pressure/dilemma? 8. In which situations does assisted killing apply? 9. What are your feelings towards euthanasia? 10. Have you been caught? 11. Does the patient or the family of the patient desire assisted killing? 12. What do you think about euthanasia? 13. Do you feel guilt? 14. How do you inform the family members or the party about the death? 15. Do you think it’s cruel to end the suffering of one person if they still want to live? 16. Have you done euthanasia voluntary...

Words: 356 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Euthanasia

...Marc Vinkler E1 d. 04-12-2011 Essay - about euthanasia What happens when a patient is terminal ill and decides for euthanasia? What would you do if it was a member of your family? Many people have not done any considerations about the question. Is it because we are afraid of the thought, or because we are convinced that we would not end up in the situation? Do you think that people should have the right to decide whether they would like euthanasia or live on with an incurable illness or a paralyzed body? The word euthanasia comes from Greek and means good death. But is euthanasia a good way to die? You can answer that question with two widely different points of view. When a person has been involved in a car accident, where he got paralyzed and also suffers from a lot of pain. Most people would agree that it is best to take the medicine from the person if he or she begs to die. In that way you can say that it is a good death because the person escapes from the pain hell. But if a person makes the wrong decision because depression and ignorance it is tragic. Because in some cases you can actually have a relatively good life even though you are paralyzed. Just read the story about Vivian Berzinski who was paralyzed in 1972 when she was 17 years old. Her doctors felt she would never be able to move, never be able to talk and never be able to breathe without a respirator. But since then she armed only with the love of her family and her own fierce will, she has married...

Words: 712 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Euthanasia

...Euthanasia: Live and Let Die April 11, 2013 Euthanasia: Live and Let Die In 2004, Pope John Paul II said “A man, even if seriously sick or prevented in the exercise of its higher functions, is and will be always a man… he will never become a ‘vegetable’ or an ‘animal’. The intrinsic value and personal dignity of every human being does not change depending on their circumstances” (Pope John Paul II, 2004). Euthanasia or assisted suicide is the deliberate action of ending a life in order to relieve unstoppable suffering. Euthanasia is legal in Albania, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, as well as some US states. In some of these countries, euthanasia is generally executed by a medical professional taking into account his patient’s needs and desires; but sometimes a medical professional can dispense the last medication ending his patient’s life without the patient’s consent. However, euthanasia and assisted suicide is forbidden in the majority of countries and could be penalized by a fourteen years prison sentence. (“Euthanasia and assisted, intro”). Legalizing euthanasia is extremely controversial moral and legal issue throughout the world, but achieving that goal is extremely necessary. Although legalizing euthanasia could cause negative effects for society, the positive side of this controversy indicates that asking for death is important for those patients who have decided that after a certain point, the pain has exceeded the desire of living. On the one hand...

Words: 1548 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Euthanasia

...in the world today is to legalize euthanasia, and already several countries are considering the passing of legal bills to make euthanasia legal. Argument I: Euthanasia in our modern time is seen as a merciful solution, not as a crime, and it is justified by human feelings and understanding. A- Counter Argument: Euthanasia is nothing than an act of suicide, and hence, it is as morally wrong and unacceptable as suicide is. B- Refutation: Suicide and euthanasia are morally different because suicide is the choice of death as one of several options whereas in euthanasia it is the only choice to end permanent and unbearable pain and suffering. Argument II: Euthanasia should be legalized because this is the only way to regulate a concept that is practiced all over the world anyway. A- Counter Argument: Doctors who assist patients to commit euthanasia should be punished as criminals, because according to their oath, they are supposed to elongate the lives of their patients, not to end them. B- Refutation: Doctors who assist euthanasia cannot be treated as criminals if their intentions are to relieve patients of permanent and unbearable suffering. Medical assisted euthanasia is not in violation with the oath that doctors take to relieve their patients of unbearable and permanent pain. Argument III: Euthanasia has deep roots as it has been practiced by human civilizations. A- Counter Argument: Euthanasia was practiced by barbarian and inhuman...

Words: 1641 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Euthanasia

...Outline ( Euthanasia-Why it should be allowed? ) Title : Euthanasia- Why it should be allowed? Specific Purpose : To inform my audience about definition, types of Euthanasia and the argument in favour of Euthanasia. Central idea : Euthanasia proposed on three arguments in favour of it which are the good death, right to maintain human dignity and justice. I. Introduction A. What is euthanasia? 1. The act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. ( Wikipedia ) 2. Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. B. Classifications of euthanasia. 1. Voluntary euthanasia 2. Involuntary euthanasia 3. Euthanasia by action C. Euthanasia results in the Netherlands.( Churches for Life, 2008 ) II. Arguments in favour of euthanasia. A. The good death. 1. described ideally as drifting into death in a pleasing environment as one falls asleep ( L Mishara, 2011 ). 2. Euthanasia can be seen as a way to assure that a person dies in a dignified and appropriate manner. a. Case on Mrs Boyes where she was requested for voluntary active Euthanasia. She was so...

Words: 635 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Euthanasia

...Christian decision. Mainline and Liberal Christian denominations: Pro-choice statements have been made by the United Church of Christ, and the Methodist Church on the US West coast. The 'Episcopalian (Anglican) Unitarian, Methodist, Presbyterian and Quaker movements are amongst the most liberal, allowing at least individual decision making in cases of active euthanasia The BBC wrote in an Aug. 3, 2009 online article titled "Religion & Ethics - Christianity: Euthanasia - the Christian View" on www.bbc.co.uk: "Christians are mostly against euthanasia. The arguments are usually based on the beliefs that life is given by God, and that human beings are made in God's image. Some churches also emphasise the importance of not interfering with the natural process of death... Christians believe that the intrinsic dignity and value of human lives means that the value of each human life is identical. They don't think that human dignity and value are measured by mobility, intelligence, or any achievements in life. Valuing human beings as equal just because they are human beings has clear implications for thinking about euthanasia: • patients in a persistent vegetative state, although seriously damaged, remain living human beings, and so their intrinsic value remains the same as anyone else's • so it would be wrong to treat their lives as worthless and to conclude that they 'would be better off dead' • patients who are old or sick, and who are near the end of earthly life...

Words: 7225 - Pages: 29

Premium Essay

Euthanasia

...Voluntary Euthanasia According to the Philosopher Helga Kuhse, she writes that 'Euthanasia' is a compound of two Greek words - eu and Thanatos. These words literally mean “a good death”. Today, 'euthanasia' is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death - 'mercy killing,' where one person, A, ends the life of another person, B, for the sake of B."  Euthanasia is putting to death of a very sick person's life in order to alleviate them from their agony. A person that usually request for euthanasia services has an untreatable condition but there are special cases where some people want their life to end. In many situation, it is implemented when the patient ask for it but there are occasions when the patients is too ill and cannot make the decision themselves but the requests is made by relatives, medics or, in some instances, the courts. The country of United Kingdom’s law is against the practice of euthanasia and it is illegal to help anyone kill him or herself. The punishment of euthanasia can lead to detention of up to 14 years. This issue has been at the centre of very intense debates for many years and is surrounded by religious, ethical and practical considerations. Euthanasia have different categorize which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is lawful in some countries such as United States Of America and Canadian Provinces. Non-voluntary euthanasia is banned in all countries because it is considered a murder...

Words: 2617 - Pages: 11