The arguments for active euthanasia tend to frequently focus on just the individual requesting it and largely ignore what the act means for other involved parties such as the physician. Voluntary euthanasia has consequences that go beyond the patient just like involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia has major consequences for the very definition of medicine and its role in society. The goal of medicine should remain what it has been traditionally which is to promote and preserve human health. It should not be used as a tool to just “relief the suffering that stems from life itself and not merely from a sick body”. I also agree with Callahan that active euthanasia introduces a new category of killing that is distinct from the three “accepted” types of killing; capital punishment, killing in war, and killing in self-defense. I do also agree that it goes against the current societal efforts of restricting the circumstance under which one person can take the life of another. As a society that is overburdened with killings, we should not be allowing the introduction of a new category of killing. The argument of allowing euthanasia out of respect for patients’ autonomy is simply not compatible with the practice of medicine. The practice of medicine isn’t just about going along with anything a patient requests even if said patient is fully competent. If this was the case, then there would be no need for the expertise of a physician. If this was the case, a physician would amputate all limbs of a patient who wants their limbs amputated for the simple reason of just wanting to amputate their limbs. Furthermore, Callahan is right in saying that active euthanasia is “no longer a matter only of self-determination”. It is definitely a mutual social decision between the patient and the physician who is being asked to do the killing.
Having a doctor cut off you limbs is not only a straw man, but really more than that, it's ridiculous. One is rational, one is not. Why bring up such an argument. But this whole argument is really fake. No one NEEDS a doctor to kill themselves, we just need the government to get out of the way and stop making the medicine impossible to get. The doctor does not have to approve it or stick a needle in me. Just give people the opportunity to have access to medicine. Who can get it? Why not any competent adult? Are doctors Gods? Let chemists give it then. Or just let doctors who want to do it. Or make a special category of professional. End of life specialists. Or just give people freedom over their own lives. My illness was CAUSED by doctors by the way. The medicine they gave me, which I did not even need, backfired. So they literally caused the illness and now they say "not my problem". Thats absolute B.S. Do you realize many chronic pain disorders are caused by pharmacueticals? By doctor surgical mistakes? Misdiagosis? Can we at least put these in a separate category, since they already messed up the "do no harm" in an enormous way.
If you don’t choose to come into the world, you should be able to choose to leave it. Just like you pay to have a nurse help deliver a baby, one should be able to pay someone to help them die. You don’t have to call it medicine, it can be a service just like any other.
You do not seem to be asking what the individual who may die would prefer. Killing an individual who does not wish to die is generally immoral. Helping an individual to die who wishes to die is an act of compassion. There is such a thing as a fatal illness, and there is also the phenomenon of a completed life. Why just wait to be taken out by an illness? Why not self-determine? Our generation has been making decisions that former generations could not even imagine.
So if i were to harm myself in the context of self harm that would be okay because its my body and my autonomy? Dont you think we as humans dont usually know whats best for us? What if today i feel like im in so much pain and agony and it wont end and its better if my life ends instead and then there is a way out and i lose at that just because i had an option to end my life.
@@zeenyakhan334 As of 2022, 11 countries have implemented medical aid in dying laws, with more considering it. Each of these countries has set up what they consider adequate guidelines for ethical practice. Some countries allow broader guidelines than others as they learn from one another. We should be talking about how these countries address voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary medical aid in dying. Humans usually know what is best for us, given adequate education.
@@NBASandberg a cool tip, if you are ever looking for the sources of his videos, is to look at the end of the video, he always provides all his sources sadly I can't link you to Pruss's essay because youtube doesn't allow external links, but I think the "Pruss" you are looking for is Alexander R. Pruss, but he wasn't really mentioned in the video, the main characters of this discussion where Rachel and Calahan
I commented on your last video about one of Rachels' distinctions, but it also seems like his distinction between "active" and "passive" euthanasia stacks the deck against the opponents of euthanasia. Euthanasia, itself, implies that you are killing someone. So letting a patient die would only count as killing someone if you believe there is no moral distinction between killing and letting die. So it's question-begging. Also, I think Rachels is wrong to say there is no distinction between killing and letting die. I may be morally guilty if I kill someone or let them die for nefarious reasons, but surely a person who simply refuses to save someone they can save out of laziness, while certainly doing something immoral, is not morally the same as someone who commits murder. Nor have they committed the same act (the murderer wants the person dead, the lazy non-rescuer just refuses to save someone he could have saved with no nefarious motive). So I reject considering letting a patient die as an act of euthanasia, itself.
There's a critical point that I normally make when dealing with this topic that I failed to mention in the two videos (I was kicking myself when I realized that error). That is: How "euthanasia" is defined may vary substantially from author to author, so we really need to get clear on what the term means. Some will argue that euthanasia is a direct, *intentional* ending of a patient's life. In that case, there are at least some instances of "letting die" that do not count as "euthanasia" -- specifically those in which the physician who withdraws treatment does not intend that the patient dies. But the claim that direct killing (or killing at all) is an essential part of the definition of "euthanasia" is contentious (I think). Still, the debate over whether "passive euthanasia" is a genuine category or a contradiction in terms is an important one. Your comment also raises questions about whether an intentional "letting die" would be equivalent to killing (or, more simply, would just *be* an instance of killing). And that is likely something worth discussing too. As for the killing/letting die distinction more generally -- Nesbitt has an argument (in response to Rachels) that goes like this: Would you rather the world be filled with agents who will kill when it is advantageous for them to do so or a world be filled with people who never kill, but will "let die" when it is advantageous for them to do so? (Nesbitt thinks everyone will agree: The second kind of world is safer, preferable, etc., which suggests that killing is genuinely worse than "letting die.") You mention a difference in motives between agents that kill vs. those that let die -- Rachels would try to insist that we hold all that fixed across situations. But in doing so, I think Rachels' argument shows that one can be morally culpable for allowing another person to die. That doesn't undermine the claim that all agents who kill innocent people are morally culpable for doing so, however. So even if there are cases of "letting die" that appear to be "as bad as" acts of killing that doesn't imply that (A) there is no difference generally nor does it show that (B) acts of killing are ever morally permissible.
Thank you this helped me with my masters. You mentioned 3 societally and morally permissible cases of killing. Therefore it can absolutely be morally permissible. Also using the double effect doctrine or pure utilitarian perspective to argue greater good in assisting suicide under the right circumstances. Either way loved this video mate thanks
@@MrKelso85 I think you need to study more. Just mentioning three cases and calling them morally permissible does not actually make them morally permissible. Also, double effect cannot be used to justify euthanasia.
@@clintonwilcox4690 well no but society makes them morally permissible to be clear you moron, and the double effect is used for that exact purpose and interestingly against that purpose too depending on the paper / person
Euthanasia is defined as the practice of intentionally ending a life to eliminate pain and suffering, so it would depend on the intention and circumstances. For example, refusal of treatment or withdrawal of life support that is with the intention of dying as a kind of "relief" definitely is, but it depends on which medical treatment the person is giving up on, and why. For instance, it is hard to say that a patient who refuses treatment that is painful, doesn't offer reasonable benefits, and is surely not life-saving, simply because they would rather spend that time with their family and friends is practicing passive euthanasia. As long as the patient doesn't wish for "a good death" or doesn't have the intention of "ending their life and suffering", then it doesn't match the requirements in the definition of euthanasia. So tl;dr: as long as the person who choose to travel around the world didn't refuse something that would likely save them and is not intentionally refusing treatment to just end his life and eliminate pain, then it's not passive euthanasia.
Defenders of euthanasia also do not understand the consequences of going down this route. Those few who developed very high concentration through meditation can see exactly what happens at the time of death. The most important thing is the state of ones mind. When one wants to kill the body ..ones own or another’s, the mind is not at peace. The body dies but the mind remains after death and many other processes take place. When there is an agitated mind, the processes after death are hugely effected that the vast majority of people don’t know about. Better to use pain killers and palliative care ..then one just needs patience and ways to calm the mind. Totally agree with what Callahan says on this ..doctors go outside their remit when they help with another’s suicide and sadly don’t know the harm they are causing themselves . May everyone find the ways to develop a peaceful mind that can cope with anything that the body has to go through.
No, when you die, your brain stops working and the brain is what makes up who you are, which is your mind so when your brain dies, your mind is gone after you die.
No, when you die, your brain stops working and the brain is what makes up who you are, which is your mind so when your brain dies, your mind is gone after you die.
The arguments for active euthanasia tend to frequently focus on just the individual requesting it and largely ignore what the act means for other involved parties such as the physician. Voluntary euthanasia has consequences that go beyond the patient just like involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia has major consequences for the very definition of medicine and its role in society. The goal of medicine should remain what it has been traditionally which is to promote and preserve human health. It should not be used as a tool to just “relief the suffering that stems from life itself and not merely from a sick body”. I also agree with Callahan that active euthanasia introduces a new category of killing that is distinct from the three “accepted” types of killing; capital punishment, killing in war, and killing in self-defense. I do also agree that it goes against the current societal efforts of restricting the circumstance under which one person can take the life of another. As a society that is overburdened with killings, we should not be allowing the introduction of a new category of killing. The argument of allowing euthanasia out of respect for patients’ autonomy is simply not compatible with the practice of medicine. The practice of medicine isn’t just about going along with anything a patient requests even if said patient is fully competent. If this was the case, then there would be no need for the expertise of a physician. If this was the case, a physician would amputate all limbs of a patient who wants their limbs amputated for the simple reason of just wanting to amputate their limbs. Furthermore, Callahan is right in saying that active euthanasia is “no longer a matter only of self-determination”. It is definitely a mutual social decision between the patient and the physician who is being asked to do the killing.
Having a doctor cut off you limbs is not only a straw man, but really more than that, it's ridiculous. One is rational, one is not. Why bring up such an argument.
But this whole argument is really fake. No one NEEDS a doctor to kill themselves, we just need the government to get out of the way and stop making the medicine impossible to get. The doctor does not have to approve it or stick a needle in me. Just give people the opportunity to have access to medicine. Who can get it? Why not any competent adult? Are doctors Gods? Let chemists give it then. Or just let doctors who want to do it. Or make a special category of professional. End of life specialists. Or just give people freedom over their own lives.
My illness was CAUSED by doctors by the way. The medicine they gave me, which I did not even need, backfired. So they literally caused the illness and now they say "not my problem". Thats absolute B.S. Do you realize many chronic pain disorders are caused by pharmacueticals? By doctor surgical mistakes? Misdiagosis? Can we at least put these in a separate category, since they already messed up the "do no harm" in an enormous way.
If you don’t choose to come into the world, you should be able to choose to leave it. Just like you pay to have a nurse help deliver a baby, one should be able to pay someone to help them die. You don’t have to call it medicine, it can be a service just like any other.
Thank You! It helped me in my philosophy project ❤️ from India
Listening to ur voice convinces me I should go for it
You do not seem to be asking what the individual who may die would prefer. Killing an individual who does not wish to die is generally immoral. Helping an individual to die who wishes to die is an act of compassion. There is such a thing as a fatal illness, and there is also the phenomenon of a completed life. Why just wait to be taken out by an illness? Why not self-determine? Our generation has been making decisions that former generations could not even imagine.
So if i were to harm myself in the context of self harm that would be okay because its my body and my autonomy? Dont you think we as humans dont usually know whats best for us? What if today i feel like im in so much pain and agony and it wont end and its better if my life ends instead and then there is a way out and i lose at that just because i had an option to end my life.
@@zeenyakhan334 As of 2022, 11 countries have implemented medical aid in dying laws, with more considering it. Each of these countries has set up what they consider adequate guidelines for ethical practice. Some countries allow broader guidelines than others as they learn from one another. We should be talking about how these countries address voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary medical aid in dying. Humans usually know what is best for us, given adequate education.
What's it called if I vanish into thin air w/o a trace, but by design?
answer: last wishes. duh.
Excellent video. Do you have a link to Pruss's essay?
Or anyone who knows Pruss's full name?
@@NBASandberg a cool tip, if you are ever looking for the sources of his videos, is to look at the end of the video, he always provides all his sources
sadly I can't link you to Pruss's essay because youtube doesn't allow external links, but I think the "Pruss" you are looking for is Alexander R. Pruss, but he wasn't really mentioned in the video, the main characters of this discussion where Rachel and Calahan
I commented on your last video about one of Rachels' distinctions, but it also seems like his distinction between "active" and "passive" euthanasia stacks the deck against the opponents of euthanasia. Euthanasia, itself, implies that you are killing someone. So letting a patient die would only count as killing someone if you believe there is no moral distinction between killing and letting die. So it's question-begging. Also, I think Rachels is wrong to say there is no distinction between killing and letting die. I may be morally guilty if I kill someone or let them die for nefarious reasons, but surely a person who simply refuses to save someone they can save out of laziness, while certainly doing something immoral, is not morally the same as someone who commits murder. Nor have they committed the same act (the murderer wants the person dead, the lazy non-rescuer just refuses to save someone he could have saved with no nefarious motive). So I reject considering letting a patient die as an act of euthanasia, itself.
There's a critical point that I normally make when dealing with this topic that I failed to mention in the two videos (I was kicking myself when I realized that error). That is: How "euthanasia" is defined may vary substantially from author to author, so we really need to get clear on what the term means. Some will argue that euthanasia is a direct, *intentional* ending of a patient's life. In that case, there are at least some instances of "letting die" that do not count as "euthanasia" -- specifically those in which the physician who withdraws treatment does not intend that the patient dies.
But the claim that direct killing (or killing at all) is an essential part of the definition of "euthanasia" is contentious (I think). Still, the debate over whether "passive euthanasia" is a genuine category or a contradiction in terms is an important one. Your comment also raises questions about whether an intentional "letting die" would be equivalent to killing (or, more simply, would just *be* an instance of killing). And that is likely something worth discussing too.
As for the killing/letting die distinction more generally -- Nesbitt has an argument (in response to Rachels) that goes like this: Would you rather the world be filled with agents who will kill when it is advantageous for them to do so or a world be filled with people who never kill, but will "let die" when it is advantageous for them to do so? (Nesbitt thinks everyone will agree: The second kind of world is safer, preferable, etc., which suggests that killing is genuinely worse than "letting die.")
You mention a difference in motives between agents that kill vs. those that let die -- Rachels would try to insist that we hold all that fixed across situations. But in doing so, I think Rachels' argument shows that one can be morally culpable for allowing another person to die. That doesn't undermine the claim that all agents who kill innocent people are morally culpable for doing so, however. So even if there are cases of "letting die" that appear to be "as bad as" acts of killing that doesn't imply that (A) there is no difference generally nor does it show that (B) acts of killing are ever morally permissible.
Thank you this helped me with my masters. You mentioned 3 societally and morally permissible cases of killing. Therefore it can absolutely be morally permissible. Also using the double effect doctrine or pure utilitarian perspective to argue greater good in assisting suicide under the right circumstances.
Either way loved this video mate thanks
@@MrKelso85 I think you need to study more. Just mentioning three cases and calling them morally permissible does not actually make them morally permissible. Also, double effect cannot be used to justify euthanasia.
@@clintonwilcox4690 well no but society makes them morally permissible to be clear you moron, and the double effect is used for that exact purpose and interestingly against that purpose too depending on the paper / person
If I give up medical treatment and choose to travel around the world, it is passive euthanasia or not?
Euthanasia is defined as the practice of intentionally ending a life to eliminate pain and suffering, so it would depend on the intention and circumstances.
For example, refusal of treatment or withdrawal of life support that is with the intention of dying as a kind of "relief" definitely is, but it depends on which medical treatment the person is giving up on, and why.
For instance, it is hard to say that a patient who refuses treatment that is painful, doesn't offer reasonable benefits, and is surely not life-saving, simply because they would rather spend that time with their family and friends is practicing passive euthanasia.
As long as the patient doesn't wish for "a good death" or doesn't have the intention of "ending their life and suffering", then it doesn't match the requirements in the definition of euthanasia.
So tl;dr: as long as the person who choose to travel around the world didn't refuse something that would likely save them and is not intentionally refusing treatment to just end his life and eliminate pain, then it's not passive euthanasia.
What is Callahan's full name?
Daniel Callahan
*Daniel John Callahan* , but everyone calls him *Daniel Callahan* , or usually just *Callahan*
Defenders of euthanasia also do not understand the consequences of going down this route. Those few who developed very high concentration through meditation can see exactly what happens at the time of death. The most important thing is the state of ones mind. When one wants to kill the body ..ones own or another’s, the mind is not at peace. The body dies but the mind remains after death and many other processes take place. When there is an agitated mind, the processes after death are hugely effected that the vast majority of people don’t know about. Better to use pain killers and palliative care ..then one just needs patience and ways to calm the mind. Totally agree with what Callahan says on this ..doctors go outside their remit when they help with another’s suicide and sadly don’t know the harm they are causing themselves . May everyone find the ways to develop a peaceful mind that can cope with anything that the body has to go through.
No.
@@FirstLast-kp9jx Amazing rebuttal! Never seen such an convincing argument like yours 😍
@@allaamrauf8214 Wasn't trying to rebutt, just letting them know that I disagree.
No, when you die, your brain stops working and the brain is what makes up who you are, which is your mind so when your brain dies, your mind is gone after you die.
No, when you die, your brain stops working and the brain is what makes up who you are, which is your mind so when your brain dies, your mind is gone after you die.