In this essay, I will contend that Brock’s argument in favor of the moral permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia (VAE) is sound and that Brock offers persuasive responses to the objection that (A) VAE is an act which involves the deliberate killing of an innocent person and (B) the deliberate killing of an innocent person is always morally wrong. To achieve this, I will begin by summarizing Brock’s argument for the moral permissibility of VAE. Then, I will synthesize the objection to Brock’s argument and Brock’s subsequent responses. Finally, I will describe why I find Brock’s responses persuasive.
Brock’s argument for the moral permissibility of VAE can be constructed as follows: (1) VAE is supported by the “values of patient well-being …show more content…
11). For some terminally ill patients, the desire to retain a certain quality of life, avoid potential suffering, protect their dignity, and be remembered in a certain way outweighs any desire to continue living. VAE would allow these patients make personal decisions about how they die and when they die, upholding the value of self-determination. The lack of an objective threshold for when a life is no longer worth living makes self-determination even more important in these cases. The value of well-being supports a patient’s ability to determine when death is preferable to continued existence. Brock claims that society tends to overemphasize the intrinsic value of life, ascribing it a paramount importance. Misguided individuals will often claim that the value of patient well-being is in direct contention with VAE. However, for patients whose quality of life has deteriorated severely, death may be preferable to continued suffering while alive. Once again, there is no universal threshold at which death is preferable to continued existence, it is …show more content…
Brock surmises that a hypothetical objector could reason that P3 is false because (A) VAE involves intentionally killing an innocent person (B) and intentionally killing an innocent person is, in all cases, morally wrong. Brock does not dispute the truth of claim A, saying that “the claim that any individual instance of euthanasia is a case of deliberate killing of an innocent person is, with only minor qualifications, correct,” (Brock, p. 12). According to Brock, VAE is the deliberate killing of innocent person. However, Brock intends to prove that claim B, which asserts that deliberately killing an innocent person is always morally wrong, is false. He will do this in two
Brock’s argument for the moral permissibility of VAE can be constructed as follows: (1) VAE is supported by the “values of patient well-being …show more content…
11). For some terminally ill patients, the desire to retain a certain quality of life, avoid potential suffering, protect their dignity, and be remembered in a certain way outweighs any desire to continue living. VAE would allow these patients make personal decisions about how they die and when they die, upholding the value of self-determination. The lack of an objective threshold for when a life is no longer worth living makes self-determination even more important in these cases. The value of well-being supports a patient’s ability to determine when death is preferable to continued existence. Brock claims that society tends to overemphasize the intrinsic value of life, ascribing it a paramount importance. Misguided individuals will often claim that the value of patient well-being is in direct contention with VAE. However, for patients whose quality of life has deteriorated severely, death may be preferable to continued suffering while alive. Once again, there is no universal threshold at which death is preferable to continued existence, it is …show more content…
Brock surmises that a hypothetical objector could reason that P3 is false because (A) VAE involves intentionally killing an innocent person (B) and intentionally killing an innocent person is, in all cases, morally wrong. Brock does not dispute the truth of claim A, saying that “the claim that any individual instance of euthanasia is a case of deliberate killing of an innocent person is, with only minor qualifications, correct,” (Brock, p. 12). According to Brock, VAE is the deliberate killing of innocent person. However, Brock intends to prove that claim B, which asserts that deliberately killing an innocent person is always morally wrong, is false. He will do this in two