Katherine Kent
Professor Sheldon
Bioethics
13 November 2016
Who Holds the Power? In this paper, I am going to discuss Daniel Callahan’s argument to the conclusion that euthanasia is a mutual, social decision between two people, rather than an issue of self-determination — what I will call the Mutual, Social Decision argument (MSD). I will more specifically focus on his premise stating that one should not have the right to give up their right to life to another person, nor should one accept this power - an argument that I will reference as the Right to Life argument (RTL). If this premise is not valid, then the morality of other topics, such as slavery and prostitution, must be reassessed. In this paper, I am going to argue that this premise …show more content…
I conclude that while his premise on RTL is flawed, his conclusion that euthanasia is a mutual, social decision rather than one of self-determination can be valid.
Part 1 Callahan defends the position that voluntary euthanasia is not a matter of self-determination, but one involving a mutual, social decision. He makes reference to how suicide is a matter of self-determination, as it involves only one person. However, he comes to the conclusion that euthanasia is a mutual, social decision because the act involves two people: the one to do the killing and the one to be killed. His arguments …show more content…
Voluntary euthanasia is the termination of the life of a patient, who has given explicit consent for this to be done, by a physician in order to relieve pain and suffering. Consenting adult killing refers to one person killing another “in the name of their mutual right to be killer and killed if they freely agree to play those roles (Vaughn 625).” The principle of autonomy obliges us to respect a patient’s right to self-determination, the right to make their own decisions concerning the medical care and treatment. In order to have this right, a patient must be an autonomous agent, meaning he or she is capable of making rational, moral decisions, and has developed a certain level of maturity, therefore, pushing children out of the realms of being autonomous
Professor Sheldon
Bioethics
13 November 2016
Who Holds the Power? In this paper, I am going to discuss Daniel Callahan’s argument to the conclusion that euthanasia is a mutual, social decision between two people, rather than an issue of self-determination — what I will call the Mutual, Social Decision argument (MSD). I will more specifically focus on his premise stating that one should not have the right to give up their right to life to another person, nor should one accept this power - an argument that I will reference as the Right to Life argument (RTL). If this premise is not valid, then the morality of other topics, such as slavery and prostitution, must be reassessed. In this paper, I am going to argue that this premise …show more content…
I conclude that while his premise on RTL is flawed, his conclusion that euthanasia is a mutual, social decision rather than one of self-determination can be valid.
Part 1 Callahan defends the position that voluntary euthanasia is not a matter of self-determination, but one involving a mutual, social decision. He makes reference to how suicide is a matter of self-determination, as it involves only one person. However, he comes to the conclusion that euthanasia is a mutual, social decision because the act involves two people: the one to do the killing and the one to be killed. His arguments …show more content…
Voluntary euthanasia is the termination of the life of a patient, who has given explicit consent for this to be done, by a physician in order to relieve pain and suffering. Consenting adult killing refers to one person killing another “in the name of their mutual right to be killer and killed if they freely agree to play those roles (Vaughn 625).” The principle of autonomy obliges us to respect a patient’s right to self-determination, the right to make their own decisions concerning the medical care and treatment. In order to have this right, a patient must be an autonomous agent, meaning he or she is capable of making rational, moral decisions, and has developed a certain level of maturity, therefore, pushing children out of the realms of being autonomous