Quiz - Ethics Of Euthanasia

The explanation for the correct answer "Implied" is that the argument presented in the given statements does not explicitly state the rule, but it can be inferred or implied from the logical sequence of the statements. The argument suggests that if someone wants euthanasia to be applied to themselves in cases of extreme suffering, they should also be willing to allow the same for others. This implies a version of the Golden Rule that promotes consistency and fairness in applying euthanasia.

In Rachel's lecture, she presented two versions of the argument for the Golden Rule: the official version and the implied version. The official version refers to the explicit and direct statement of the Golden Rule, while the implied version implies the Golden Rule through actions or behaviors without explicitly stating it. These two versions highlight different ways in which the Golden Rule can be understood and applied in various situations.

Baxter uses the criteria of "Spheres of Freedom" to frame solutions to problems of human organization and to explain his position regarding pollution. This suggests that Baxter believes in considering the concept of "Spheres of Freedom" when addressing issues related to human organization and pollution. By utilizing this framework, Baxter likely aims to find solutions that respect individual freedoms while also addressing the environmental impact caused by pollution.

Patients in a coma or similar status could not be granted euthanasia and under Angell's argument family cannot be given this right either.

The given explanation suggests that the implied version of Rachels Golden Rule is being referred to in this statement. The implied version of the rule states that if you would want a certain action or rule applied to yourself, then you should be willing to allow the same action or rule for others. In this case, the statement is suggesting that if you would want doctors to employ euthanasia on you in cases of extreme suffering, then you should be willing to allow the same for others.

Example given from lectures was the baby and not operating on it if the procedure would cause more pain than good.

Rachels' position on the AMA policy regarding active euthanasia is that she believes it is mistaken because it "endorses" passive euthanasia and prohibits active euthanasia. She argues that the policy is vague in describing cessation of treatment and does not accurately define "letting a patient die." Therefore, she disagrees with the AMA's stance on active euthanasia.

Sullivan disagrees with Rachels and believes that what makes the act important is the intention of an agent. This means that Sullivan believes the significance of an act lies in the motive or purpose behind it. According to Sullivan, the intention behind an action determines its moral value, rather than the consequences or outcomes of the action.

According to Rachels, intentions and ordinary measures play a huge role in Sullivan's positions but are irrelevant in determining whether an act is right or wrong. This implies that Rachels believes that the morality of an action should not be determined solely based on the intentions behind it or the ordinary measures taken, suggesting that other factors may be more important in assessing the rightness or wrongness of an act.

The criterion described in the answer is "Every person should be free to do whatever he wishes in a context where his actions do not interfere with the interests of other beings." This criterion emphasizes the importance of individual freedom while also recognizing the need to consider the impact of one's actions on others. It implies that waste, which involves using resources in a way that yields less satisfaction, goes against the principle of maximizing human satisfactions and is therefore considered a bad thing.

Rachels defines active euthanasia as intentionally killing a patient to prevent unnecessary suffering. This means that in active euthanasia, a person takes deliberate action to end someone's life, such as administering a lethal dose of medication. This is different from passive euthanasia, where treatment is withheld or withdrawn to allow a patient to die naturally. The key distinction is the active involvement in causing death to alleviate suffering.

The explanation for the correct answer is that the statement provided points out a weakness in Baxter's argument. Baxter claims that animals do not have intrinsic value because they cannot express their preferences through voting. However, the statement highlights that there are humans who are unable to comprehend voting, such as the mentally challenged, yet they are still considered intrinsically valued. This weakens Baxter's argument because it shows that the ability to vote is not a determining factor for intrinsic value. Therefore, the correct answer is True.

This is the consequentialist version of Rachels Golden Rule. It suggests that if you do not want a certain rule to be applied to yourself, then you should not want to apply it to others. In this case, the rule being referred to is one that prohibits euthanasia. The argument is that if you do not want to be prohibited from choosing euthanasia for yourself, then you should not want to prohibit others from making that choice either. Therefore, the correct answer is "consequentialist".

This is the application version of Rachels Golden Rule. The Golden Rule states that one should treat others as they would like to be treated. In this case, the rule is applied to the topic of euthanasia. It suggests that if one does not want a rule prohibiting euthanasia to be applied to themselves, then they should not want to apply it to others. The answer implies that this version of the Golden Rule focuses on the application of rules and the consistency of one's desires and actions.

The criterion that is described in the given statement is "Waste is a bad thing." This criterion suggests that resources, labor, and skills should not be wasted and should be utilized in a way that maximizes human satisfaction. It emphasizes the importance of efficiently utilizing available resources to avoid any unnecessary waste.

Dr. Guleserian disagrees with Rachels and uses the example of twin joggers to support the idea that intentions do matter. The example suggests that if someone accidentally kills another person while jogging, it is different from intentionally killing someone. This implies that the act itself changes based on intentions, highlighting the importance of intentions in determining the moral implications of an action.

The correct answer is Cathedral view, laboratory argument, silo argument, and Gymnasium argument. These four types of arguments offer instrumental justifications for preserving wilderness. The Cathedral view argues that wilderness provides spiritual and aesthetic benefits. The laboratory argument suggests that wilderness serves as a valuable research and educational resource. The silo argument emphasizes the importance of wilderness for protecting biodiversity. The Gymnasium argument highlights the recreational and physical health benefits of wilderness.

Sullivan agrees with Rachel's view that if passive euthanasia is morally permissible, then active euthanasia is also morally permissible. This means that Sullivan believes that both types of euthanasia, passive and active, should be considered justifiable in certain circumstances.

According to Sullivan, ordinary means of treatment are basic and should never be withheld from a patient because they do not cause any pain.

According to Godfrey-Smith, the dominant but mistaken assumption within our Western traditions is that what is intrinsically valuable are states or conditions of persons. This means that people have always believed that the well-being or value of something is determined by the state or condition of a person, rather than considering other factors such as environmental surroundings or the measurement of pleasure or pain.

The two versions of Rachel's argument for the Golden Rule are referred to as the official and implied versions.

Patients in a coma or similar status could not be granted euthanasia and under Angell's argument family cannot be given this right either.

Example of Jack and Jill visiting their grandma.

Rachels' main argument in favor of active euthanasia is that if passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, then active euthanasia should also be considered permissible. He argues that there is no moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia, as in both cases someone is dying. Therefore, if it is morally acceptable to let someone die through passive means, it should also be morally acceptable to take active steps to end their suffering.

The Twin Joggers, intentions did matter.

Example: Crazy man on the boat. Kill him or let him kill everyone.

Sullivan says any euthanasia is never ok because it would require a doctor have the intention of killing a patient.

Rachels criticizes Sullivan's use of the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary treatment because she argues that there is no principled way to determine the difference between the two. She believes that the classification is relative to other factors and cannot be clearly defined. Therefore, Sullivan's failure to provide a definite way to justify and classify the means of treatment as either ordinary or extraordinary is a valid criticism according to Rachels.

Sullivan believes that the AMA statement regarding euthanasia is that active euthanasia is wrong.

Sullivan also indicated the dr. must never have intentions to end the patients life.