Quiz - Ethics Of Euthanasia

Approved & Edited by ProProfs Editorial Team
The editorial team at ProProfs Quizzes consists of a select group of subject experts, trivia writers, and quiz masters who have authored over 10,000 quizzes taken by more than 100 million users. This team includes our in-house seasoned quiz moderators and subject matter experts. Our editorial experts, spread across the world, are rigorously trained using our comprehensive guidelines to ensure that you receive the highest quality quizzes.
Learn about Our Editorial Process
| By Arelyor
A
Arelyor
Community Contributor
Quizzes Created: 1 | Total Attempts: 383
Questions: 35 | Attempts: 383

SettingsSettingsSettings
Disease Quizzes & Trivia

Applied Ethics, examples of questions for the final exam based on the supplied study guide.


Questions and Answers
  • 1. 

    What is Rachels main argument in favor of active euthanasia?

    • A.

      Passive euthanasia in less humane than active euthanasia because you suffer in passive.

    • B.

      Active euthanasuia is permissible because the AMA is ambiguous in the wording.

    • C.

      If passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissable (and it is), then active euthanasia is sometimes permissable.

    • D.

      Active and passive euthanasia have carry no moral distinction, someone is dying regardless, thus active is morally permissable.

    Correct Answer
    C. If passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissable (and it is), then active euthanasia is sometimes permissable.
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 2. 

    State Rachels nonutilitarian version of the Arg. from Mercy in 3 steps.1) If an action promotes the best interest of every one concerned, and violates no one's rights, then that action is morally acceptable.2)In at least some cases, active euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and vviolates no one's rights.3) Therefore, in at least some cases active euthanasia in morally acceptable.

  • 3. 

    Rachels version of the argument for the Golden Rule were given in lecture, there were two versions. What were they called?

    • A.

      The official and implied versions.

    • B.

      The utilitarian and non-utilitarian versions.

    • C.

      The active and passive versions.

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

    Rate this question:

  • 4. 

    What is Rachels position on the AMA policy regarding active euthanasia?

    • A.

      Rachels defines the AMA policy as false and doesn't believe it defines "letting a patient die".

    • B.

      Rachels believes it is wrong because it's vague in describing cessation of treatment.

    • C.

      Rachels believes the policy is mistaken because it "endorses" passive euthanasia and prohibits active.

    • D.

      The AMA prohibits any termination of life and supports that doctors take an oath to save lives at any cost.

    Correct Answer
    C. Rachels believes the policy is mistaken because it "endorses" passive euthanasia and prohibits active.
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 5. 

    1. If you would not want a rule which prohibits euthanasia be applied to you, you ought not to want to apply it to others.2. You would not want to apply such a rule.3. Hence, you ought not to want such a rule be applied to others.This is the ____________ version of Rachels Golden Rule.

    Correct Answer
    Official
    Explanation
    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".

    Rate this question:

  • 6. 

    1. If you would want doctors to employ euthanasia on you, with your consent in cases of terminal extreme suffering you, then you should be willing to allow the same for others.2. You would want such a rule applied to you.3. Hence, you should be willing to allow the same for others.This is the ___________ version of Rachels Golden Rule.

    Correct Answer
    Implied
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 7. 

    Angells postition on euthanasia is that patients would have to be able to ask for it themselves. In the event that patients slip into a vegatative coma, the patients family could request enuthanasia.

    • A.

      True

    • B.

      False

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

    Rate this question:

  • 8. 

    Rachels defines which type of euthanasia as "intentionally killing a patient in order to prevent unecessary suffering.

    Correct Answer
    Active
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 9. 

    Which of the four criteria that Baxter presents in his "Spheres of Freedom" is descibed as follows; The Dominant feature of human existence is scarcity- our availble resources, our aggregate labors, or skills, should be wasted-that is, employed so as to yield less thant they might yield in human satisfactions.

    • A.

      Every person should be free to do whatever he wishes in context where his actions do not interfere with the interest of other beings.

    • B.

      Waste is a bad thing.

    • C.

      Every being should regarded as an end rather than a means.

    • D.

      Both incentive and opportunity should be preserved to every individual.

    Correct Answer
    B. Waste is a bad thing.
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 10. 

    Define passive euthanasia based on Rachels definition.

  • 11. 

    Sullivan agrees with Rachel's view of the relationship of the two types of euthanasia with respect to their justifiable use? That is, Sullivan agrees that if passive euthanasia is morally permissable than so is active euthanasia.

    • A.

      True

    • B.

      False

    Correct Answer
    A. True
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 12. 

    What does Sullivan believe about the AMA statement with its regard to euthanasia?

    • A.

      Sullivan says the AMA states that active euthanasia is wrong.

    • B.

      Sullivan believes that both passive euthanasia active euthanasia are wrong and the AMA supports this.

    • C.

      Sullvian theory is that the AMA requires all doctors take all measures to save lives.

    Correct Answer
    A. Sullivan says the AMA states that active euthanasia is wrong.
    Explanation
    Sullivan believes that the AMA statement regarding euthanasia is that active euthanasia is wrong.

    Rate this question:

  • 13. 

    Sullivan disagrees with Rachels and believes that what makes the act important is the ____________ of an agent.

    Correct Answer
    Intention
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 14. 

    According to Sullivan passive euthanasia is sometimes ok.

    • A.

      True

    • B.

      False

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

    Rate this question:

  • 15. 

    How does Sullivan use the Doctrine of Double Effect to defend his position as to when it is permissable to withhold treatment?

    • A.

      Sullivan holds that intention play a huge role, so the agent may want the good outcome, but there are cases that wouldn't lead to any good or cause more pain.

    • B.

      The Doctrine of Double Effect is where a person does something and the action causes desired and undesired outcomes, thus Sullivan uses this to argue doctors can choose which treatments are necessary.

    • C.

      The Doctrine of Double Effect is used to support Sullivan's theory that saving a life is always mandated.

    Correct Answer
    A. Sullivan holds that intention play a huge role, so the agent may want the good outcome, but there are cases that wouldn't lead to any good or cause more pain.
    Explanation
    Example given from lectures was the baby and not operating on it if the procedure would cause more pain than good.

    Rate this question:

  • 16. 

    What example is given to defend Rachels view that intention plays no role in euthanasia?

  • 17. 

    Rachels claims that the relationship between the wrongness of an act and the intention is that a bad intention cannot make an act wrong, if it would otherwise be right.

    • A.

      True

    • B.

      False

    Correct Answer
    A. True
    Explanation
    Example of Jack and Jill visiting their grandma.

    Rate this question:

  • 18. 

    According to Sullivan, when is it okay to withhold treatment?

    • A.

      It is okay when the patient has consented to it.

    • B.

      It is okay to avoid more pain or when it will not be doing any good.

    • C.

      It is okay when the doctor must take extraordinary measures.

    • D.

      It is never okay.

    Correct Answer
    B. It is okay to avoid more pain or when it will not be doing any good.
    Explanation
    Sullivan also indicated the dr. must never have intentions to end the patients life.

    Rate this question:

  • 19. 

    ______________ means do not cause the patient pain and are very basic, they should never be withheld according to Sullivan.

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

    Rate this question:

  • 20. 

    According to Rachels, ____________ (although they play a huge role in Sullivan's positions) are irrelevant in determining whether an act is right or wrong.

    Correct Answer
    intentions
    ordinary measures
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 21. 

    One strength Prof. G mentions, regarding Sullivan is...

    • A.

      Sullivan interprets the AMA is more accurate and holds that active euthanasia is never okay.

    • B.

      Since bad intentions can make an act wrong, it is possible to hold that it is wrong to use euthanasia.

    • C.

      Good intentions cannot make a bad act good, so Sullivan is right is holding that intentions are moderatly important.

    • D.

      His arguments are stronger because he holds a theological factor that more people could agree with.

    Correct Answer
    B. Since bad intentions can make an act wrong, it is possible to hold that it is wrong to use euthanasia.
    Explanation
    The Twin Joggers, intentions did matter.

    Rate this question:

  • 22. 

    One weakness of Sullivan's argument is that just general pacifism is implausible, pacifism restricted to patients is impalusible because it requires, for example, giving insulin to a dying cancer patient who develops diabetes. Giving isulin in this case would prolong the life of the patient and make him live in agony even though the cancer is going to kill him. Giving the insulin in inhumane yet required throught Sullivans' argument, why? And, know what example did Prof. give regarding pacifism?

    • A.

      It is required because it could potentially save a life and this is what is required via the AMA.

    • B.

      The insulin would be required because it would alleviate any pain associated with the diabetes.

    • C.

      It would be required because no one can be sure whether the cancer will kill him/her, Sullivan doesn't believe anyone can know for sure.

    • D.

      The insulin is required because by definition it's an ordinary measure and Sullivan states those can NEVER be withheld.

    Correct Answer
    D. The insulin is required because by definition it's an ordinary measure and Sullivan states those can NEVER be withheld.
    Explanation
    Example: Crazy man on the boat. Kill him or let him kill everyone.

    Rate this question:

  • 23. 

    Dr. Black and Dr. White both choose different reasons for the treatment with the baby who suffers from the necrotic bowel. Neither operates, Dr. White because he it will end the suffering of the baby and Dr. Black because it will end the baby's life quicker. What does this example provide Rachels support of?

  • 24. 

    Dr. Guleserian disagress with Rachels on this point. And gives the twin joggers as an example, what does this example support?

    • A.

      That intentions don't matter, unless it can be proven and evidence can be shown.

    • B.

      That intentions do matter, if you kill someone accidently verses on purpose, the act changes based on intentions.

    • C.

      Intention are irrelvant unless the actions occur other than in a hospital.

    • D.

      Intentions do matter because it is part of a moral obligation that humans have and doctors take an oath to act on in their profession.

    Correct Answer
    B. That intentions do matter, if you kill someone accidently verses on purpose, the act changes based on intentions.
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 25. 

    What criticism does Rachels make about Sullivan's use of the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary treatment?

    • A.

      The distinction isn't clear, Sullivan makes the distinction more confusing and poorly references the AMA terms, which are already vague.

    • B.

      The term of extraordinary is poorly defines, it is not elaborated upon enough.

    • C.

      There is no principled way of capturing the difference between the two means of treatment, it is relative to other factors.

    • D.

      Sullivan fails to give a definite way that the means of treatment can be justified and classified as either ordinary or extraordinary.

    Correct Answer
    C. There is no principled way of capturing the difference between the two means of treatment, it is relative to other factors.
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 26. 

    State Rachels nonutilitarian version of the Arg. from Mercy in 3 steps.1) If an action promotes the best interest of every one concerned, and violates no one's rights, then that action is morally acceptable.2)In at least some cases, active euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and vviolates no one's rights.3) Therefore, in at least some cases active euthanasia in morally acceptable.

  • 27. 

    Rachels version of the argument for the Golden Rule were given in lecture, there were two versions. What were they called?

    • A.

      The official and implied versions.

    • B.

      The utilitarian and non-utilitarian versions.

    • C.

      The active and passive versions.

    Correct Answer
    A. The official and implied versions.
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 28. 

    1. If you would not want a rule which prohibits euthanasia be applied to you, you ought not to want to apply it to others.2. You would not want to apply such a rule.3. Hence, you ought not to want such a rule be applied to others.This is the ____________ version of Rachels Golden Rule.

    Correct Answer
    Official
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 29. 

    1. If you would want doctors to employ euthanasia on you, with your consent in cases of terminal extreme suffering you, then you should be willing to allow the same for others.2. You would want such a rule applied to you.3. Hence, you should be willing to allow the same for others.This is the ___________ version of Rachels Golden Rule.

    Correct Answer
    Implied
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 30. 

    Angells postition on euthanasia is that patients would have to be able to ask for it themselves. In the event that patients slip into a vegatative coma, the patients family could request enuthanasia.

    • A.

      True

    • B.

      False

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

    Rate this question:

  • 31. 

    Which of the four criteria that Baxter presents in his "Spheres of Freedom" is descibed as follows; The Dominant feature of human existence is scarcity- our availble resources, our aggregate labors, or skills, should be wasted-that is, employed so as to yield less thant they might yield in human satisfactions.

    • A.

      Every person should be free to do whatever he wishes in context where his actions do not interfere with the interest of other beings.

    • B.

      Waste is a bad thing.

    • C.

      Every being should regarded as an end rather than a means.

    • D.

      Both incentive and opportunity should be preserved to every individual.

    Correct Answer
    B. Waste is a bad thing.
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 32. 

    Baxter uses these criteria of "Spheres of Freedom" to frame solutions to problems of _________ organization and to explain his position regarding ___________.

    Correct Answer
    Human & Pollution
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 33. 

    Baxter doesn't believe that animals have intrinsic value because they cannot express their preferences by means of a vote. This idea leads into a weakness in his arguments because there are humans who an unable to comprehend voting, such as the mentally challeged and they are no less of intrinsically valued than another human being.

    • A.

      True

    • B.

      False

    Correct Answer
    A. True
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 34. 

    What according to Godfrey-Smith has been the dominant but mistaken assumption within our Western traditions as to what is intrinsically valuable?

    • A.

      They have always been taken to be states or conditions of persons.

    • B.

      They have always been taken to be envirnomental surroundings.

    • C.

      They have always been taken to be measured by pleasure or pain.

    Correct Answer
    A. They have always been taken to be states or conditions of persons.
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 35. 

    The four types of arguments that defend the preservation of wilderness by offering instrumental justifications for preserving it, are which ones?

    • A.

      Cathedral view, optimal view, silo argument, & Physical Argument.

    • B.

      Cathedral view, Laboratory argument, Silo argument, and generic view.

    • C.

      Cathedral view, laboratory argument, silo argumnet, and Gymnasium argument.

    Correct Answer
    C. Cathedral view, laboratory argument, silo argumnet, and Gymnasium argument.
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

Quiz Review Timeline +

Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.

  • Current Version
  • Mar 21, 2023
    Quiz Edited by
    ProProfs Editorial Team
  • May 10, 2010
    Quiz Created by
    Arelyor
Back to Top Back to top
Advertisement
×

Wait!
Here's an interesting quiz for you.

We have other quizzes matching your interest.