Final Exam: Medical Ethics

the practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering.

Occurs when a physician, assists the patient in committing suicide 

 deliberate steps are taken to cause the death of the patient. 

doctors withdraw medical treatment with the intention of causing the patient’s death or they neglect to take some action that would prevent death.  

 occurs only when ending the patients life has been requested by the patient or by someone authorized to speak for the patient.  

occurs when the patient’s life is ended against his expressed wishes.  In involuntary euthanasia, not only does the patient not give consent to  being killed, he explicitly requests not to be killed.  

 occurs when the patient has given no indication of her wishes one way or the other—no requests to be euthanized, but no requests not to be euthanized either.

Playing god means that you are intervening in gods plan.. nature1. let god decide when it is time for people to die2. we should not interfere in God's natural process

1. If a person commits Euthanasia, then s/he plays  God.  2.If a person plays God, then s/he does something  wrong.  3.Therefore, if a person commits Euthanasia, then  s/he does something wrong.  HS

It is always morally wrong to do something that is not part of God’s plan. 1. How do we know what God's plan is? God  specify what to do in a cases  2. how does relieving pain counts as murder  3.How do we know that it wasn't in God's plan for the  doctor to take action 

It always morally wrong to intervene in the course of nature.• Anytime we do anything – step on the grass, drive a  car etc.– we are interfering in the course of nature. But   these things aren't morally impermissible!  • There are even lots of cases where doctors  radically interfere with the course of nature – such as setting a broken bone etc. –  but we don't think action are morally impermissible. 

It is always morally wrong to influence the time of a person’s death. 1. Doctors do things all the time to extend their  patients lives – preforming CPR etc.2. ordinary things such as taking vitamins, or biking to work are things we do that might influence the time of our deaths. 

AMA Code of Ethics regards the distinction between active and passive euthanasia as morally significant: whereas it permits many cases of passive euthanasia, active euthanasia is prohibited 

Passive and active are morally equivalent.these actions do not effect the moral status of the action. If ending a life is permissible: the bathtub cases

1. What Jones does is just as wrong as what Smith does.

 

2. If what Jones does is just as wrong as what Smith does, then there is no moral difference between killing and letting die.

 

3. There is no moral difference between killing and letting die.

1. People who are prepared to kill someone are worse people than people who are prepared to let someone die.

2. If (1) then, killing is worse than letting die.

 

3. Therefore killing is worse than letting die. 

**changes the way of action to character.thinks Rachels thoguht experiment is unsound-- both men were prepared to kill child--- Jones got lucky-- but Nesbit tries to show Rachels experiment in unsound but just makes it more sound--- just shows that these thought experiments are equally badNesbit is not attacking Rachels argument of action but making his own up We might also take issue with Nesbit's reasoning behind what makes for a good or bad character. What do our feelings about someone (for instance feeling threatened by them or not) have to do with their being a good or bad person?