Why is the ethics of euthanasia wrong?

Andrius Narbekovas, Kazys Meilius

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    3 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and are therefore of intrinsic worth or value, beyond all prices. Almost all Christian pro-life arguments spring from the fountain of personal dignity. Euthanasia would make moral sense only if it were possible to say, morally, that this dignity had vanished. To commit euthanasia is to act with the specific intention that somebody should be nobody. This is the fundamental error of all immorality in human relations. To commit euthanasia is to fail to see the intrinsic worth or dignity of the person. The judgement that what has worth, intrinsically, somehow does not have worth, is both logically and morally wrong. The ethics of euthanasia is based on dualistic anthropology and wrong moral presuppositions underlying the defence of euthanasia, namely, proportionalism and consequentialism. The basic claim of proponents of the ethics of euthanasia is that human persons are consciously experiencing subjects whose dignity consists of their ability to make choices and to determine their own lives. Bodily life, according to them, is a condition for personal life because without bodily life one cannot be a consciously experiencing subject. It means that bodily life is distinct from personal life. Thus, the body and bodily life are instrumental goods, goods for the person, not goods of the person. It thus follows that there can be such a thing as a life not worth living — one can judge that bodily life itself is useless or burdensome, and when it is, the person, i.e., the consciously experiencing subject, is at liberty to free himself of this useless burden. Today a key in fighting euthanasia and assisted suicide is better care for the sick and dying. The dignity of the sick cannot be erased by illness and suffering. Such procedures are not private decisions; they affect the who-le society.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)2-7
    JournalMedical ethics & bioethics = Medicínska etika & bioetika
    Volume11
    Issue number3-4
    Publication statusPublished - 2004

    Fingerprint

    Euthanasia
    Person
    Dignity
    Intrinsic
    Personal Life
    Deity
    Liberty
    Suicide
    Intentions
    Dying
    Fountain
    Likeness
    Immorality
    Burden
    Spring
    Presupposition
    Consequentialism
    Human Being
    Fundamental
    Moral Sense

    Keywords

    • Euthanasia
    • Physician – assisted suicide
    • Anthropology

    Cite this

    Why is the ethics of euthanasia wrong? / Narbekovas, Andrius; Meilius, Kazys.

    In: Medical ethics & bioethics = Medicínska etika & bioetika, Vol. 11, No. 3-4, 2004, p. 2-7.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{d82644fdb265422fa1b91256eaa9b974,
    title = "Why is the ethics of euthanasia wrong?",
    abstract = "Human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and are therefore of intrinsic worth or value, beyond all prices. Almost all Christian pro-life arguments spring from the fountain of personal dignity. Euthanasia would make moral sense only if it were possible to say, morally, that this dignity had vanished. To commit euthanasia is to act with the specific intention that somebody should be nobody. This is the fundamental error of all immorality in human relations. To commit euthanasia is to fail to see the intrinsic worth or dignity of the person. The judgement that what has worth, intrinsically, somehow does not have worth, is both logically and morally wrong. The ethics of euthanasia is based on dualistic anthropology and wrong moral presuppositions underlying the defence of euthanasia, namely, proportionalism and consequentialism. The basic claim of proponents of the ethics of euthanasia is that human persons are consciously experiencing subjects whose dignity consists of their ability to make choices and to determine their own lives. Bodily life, according to them, is a condition for personal life because without bodily life one cannot be a consciously experiencing subject. It means that bodily life is distinct from personal life. Thus, the body and bodily life are instrumental goods, goods for the person, not goods of the person. It thus follows that there can be such a thing as a life not worth living — one can judge that bodily life itself is useless or burdensome, and when it is, the person, i.e., the consciously experiencing subject, is at liberty to free himself of this useless burden. Today a key in fighting euthanasia and assisted suicide is better care for the sick and dying. The dignity of the sick cannot be erased by illness and suffering. Such procedures are not private decisions; they affect the who-le society.",
    keywords = "Euthanasia , Physician – assisted suicide , Anthropology",
    author = "Andrius Narbekovas and Kazys Meilius",
    year = "2004",
    language = "English",
    volume = "11",
    pages = "2--7",
    journal = "Medical ethics & bioethics = Medic{\'i}nska etika & bioetika",
    issn = "1335-0560",
    number = "3-4",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Why is the ethics of euthanasia wrong?

    AU - Narbekovas, Andrius

    AU - Meilius, Kazys

    PY - 2004

    Y1 - 2004

    N2 - Human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and are therefore of intrinsic worth or value, beyond all prices. Almost all Christian pro-life arguments spring from the fountain of personal dignity. Euthanasia would make moral sense only if it were possible to say, morally, that this dignity had vanished. To commit euthanasia is to act with the specific intention that somebody should be nobody. This is the fundamental error of all immorality in human relations. To commit euthanasia is to fail to see the intrinsic worth or dignity of the person. The judgement that what has worth, intrinsically, somehow does not have worth, is both logically and morally wrong. The ethics of euthanasia is based on dualistic anthropology and wrong moral presuppositions underlying the defence of euthanasia, namely, proportionalism and consequentialism. The basic claim of proponents of the ethics of euthanasia is that human persons are consciously experiencing subjects whose dignity consists of their ability to make choices and to determine their own lives. Bodily life, according to them, is a condition for personal life because without bodily life one cannot be a consciously experiencing subject. It means that bodily life is distinct from personal life. Thus, the body and bodily life are instrumental goods, goods for the person, not goods of the person. It thus follows that there can be such a thing as a life not worth living — one can judge that bodily life itself is useless or burdensome, and when it is, the person, i.e., the consciously experiencing subject, is at liberty to free himself of this useless burden. Today a key in fighting euthanasia and assisted suicide is better care for the sick and dying. The dignity of the sick cannot be erased by illness and suffering. Such procedures are not private decisions; they affect the who-le society.

    AB - Human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and are therefore of intrinsic worth or value, beyond all prices. Almost all Christian pro-life arguments spring from the fountain of personal dignity. Euthanasia would make moral sense only if it were possible to say, morally, that this dignity had vanished. To commit euthanasia is to act with the specific intention that somebody should be nobody. This is the fundamental error of all immorality in human relations. To commit euthanasia is to fail to see the intrinsic worth or dignity of the person. The judgement that what has worth, intrinsically, somehow does not have worth, is both logically and morally wrong. The ethics of euthanasia is based on dualistic anthropology and wrong moral presuppositions underlying the defence of euthanasia, namely, proportionalism and consequentialism. The basic claim of proponents of the ethics of euthanasia is that human persons are consciously experiencing subjects whose dignity consists of their ability to make choices and to determine their own lives. Bodily life, according to them, is a condition for personal life because without bodily life one cannot be a consciously experiencing subject. It means that bodily life is distinct from personal life. Thus, the body and bodily life are instrumental goods, goods for the person, not goods of the person. It thus follows that there can be such a thing as a life not worth living — one can judge that bodily life itself is useless or burdensome, and when it is, the person, i.e., the consciously experiencing subject, is at liberty to free himself of this useless burden. Today a key in fighting euthanasia and assisted suicide is better care for the sick and dying. The dignity of the sick cannot be erased by illness and suffering. Such procedures are not private decisions; they affect the who-le society.

    KW - Euthanasia

    KW - Physician – assisted suicide

    KW - Anthropology

    M3 - Article

    VL - 11

    SP - 2

    EP - 7

    JO - Medical ethics & bioethics = Medicínska etika & bioetika

    JF - Medical ethics & bioethics = Medicínska etika & bioetika

    SN - 1335-0560

    IS - 3-4

    ER -