DYING WITH DIGNITY AND THE ARGUMENT FROM CONSCIENCE
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper examines some of the arguments in favor of and against “mercy killing”. Euthanasia is defined as the voluntary or involuntary killing of a terminally ill human being suffering from unbearable pain and intolerable suffering. Literally, euthanasia means “good death” or “dying with dignity.” But the argument for mercy killing hides under the ill motive of emancipating oneself the burden of having to bear a life that appears meaningless. This inquiry argues that such a position is morally unacceptable since it violates life itself. But the reason this paper puts forward is not based on the stewardship argument, one that says life is sacred. The stewardship argument is weak compared to the “right to die” advanced by liberal philosophers. As an alternative, the “argument from conscience”, which puts emphasis on recognizing the moral mistake of reducing the value of human life into something that is instrumentalist, is proposed. James Rachels’s utilitarian argument for mercy killing seeks to diminish the suffering in the world. But what it hides is that it actually mistreats human life as something that is quantifiable. The argument from conscience is a humanist position that is grounded in the love and attention for the dying.
Article Details
Consent to Publish and Transfer of Copyright
By publishing in Prajñā Vihāra, the author agrees to transfer and assign to Assumption University of Thailand as the Publisher of the Journal, the copyright to the Article in any form, including any and all rights, interests and claims related to it.
The author does retain the following rights:
- The right to make further copies of the published article for their use in classroom teaching.
- The right to reuse all or part of the published article in a compilation of his or her own works or in textbooks of which they are the author or coauthor.
- The right to make copies of the published article for internal distribution within their academic institution.
- All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
- The Article is his or her original work, and has not been published previously and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
- It does not contain any matter that is obscene, libelous, or contrary to law.
- They have obtained the necessary license or written authority and paid any and all related fees for the use and reproduction of text, tables, illustrations and other copyrighted work from the owners of the intellectual property rights, and can furnish the Publisher copies of the license/written authority and proof of payment of related fees upon the signing of this Agreement.
- They have the consent of the Co-Authors of the article upon the signing of this Agreement.
- In the event that they intend to republish, reprint or translate all or part of the Article in other publications, they will secure the prior written permission from the journal Editor.
Prajñā Vihāra adopts the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND) license
References
Annadurai, K., Danasekaran, R. and Mani, G. 2014. “Euthanasia: Right to Die with Dignity.” Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care. Volume 3, Number 4 (2014): 477-78.
Dworkin, R., Nagel, T., Nozick, R., Scanlon, T., Rawls, J. and Thomson, J.H. 2002. “The Brief of the Amici Curiae.” In Daniel Bonevac, editor. Moral Issues Today. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Miller, F. and Meier, D. 2002. “Voluntary Death”. In Thomas Mappes and Jane Zembaty, editors. Social Ethics. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Rachels, J. 2002. “The morality of euthanasia.” In Daniel Bonevac, editor. Moral Issues Today. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Rehnquist, W. 2002. “Opinion of the Court in State of Washington v Glucksberg.” In Thomas Mappes and Jane Zembaty, editors. Social Ethics. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Williams, J. 2002. “The wrongfulness of euthanasia.” In Daniel Bonevac, editor. Moral Issues Today. Boston: McGraw-Hill.