Euthanasia and Common Sense: A Reply to Garcia

Abstract

J. L. A. Garcia holds that my defense of voluntary euthanasia in an earlier paper amounts to an "assault on traditional common sense" about what medical ethics permits physicians to do, particularly insofar as I hold that a physician's duty to abstain from intentionally killing is only a defeasible duty, not an unconditional one. But I argue here that it is Garcia's views that are more at odds with common sense, and that voluntary euthanasia is in fact a humane alternative that respects patient autonomy and is consistent with the most fundamental moral duties of physicians. Among these is a duty to relieve suffering, which can sometimes outweigh the fundamental duty to conserve life.

Physicians' Role in Helping to Die

“…35 Cf. Battin,Ending Life,[88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107] For example, physicians reject the provision of a service in a public healthcare setting because she could benefit more from that same procedure if conducted in her private surgery. 37 Savulescu.…”

The Final Act: An Ethical Analysis of Pia Dijkstra’s Euthanasia for a Completed Life

“…Conceptually, euthanasia for a completed life is not sufficiently different to the form of euthanasia that is already legally and morally accepted in the Netherlands (Raus and Sterckx 2015). The rationale supporting the Dutch policy on euthanasia pertains to the principles of non-malevolence and autonomy (Beauchamp and Childress 2013;Rachels 1975;Seay 2011). The primary function of euthanasia in the Netherlands is to prevent unnecessary suffering, when the individual experiencing the suffering no longer wishes to continue and there is no prospect of the suffering ending by any other way than death (Overheid 2001;Rietjens et al, 2009;Beauchamp 2006;Schramme 2015).…”