The Future in Our Hands? - A Dialectical Argument against Legalising Euthanasia

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
In this paper I argue that no state should legalise euthanasia, either voluntary or non-voluntary. I begin by outlining three political arguments against such legalisation, by Russell Hittinger, Elizabeth Anscombe and David Novak. Each concludes, on different grounds, that legalised euthanasia fatally erodes the role and authority of the state. Although correct in their conclusion, the arguments they provide are deficient. To fill this gap, I elaborate what I call a ‘fourfold dialectic’ between autonomy and compassion, the two central motivations for legalising euthanasia. I show that these motivations systematically and progressively undermine each other, yielding a situation where individual autonomy and doctors’ duty of care are effectively eviscerated. It follows that state authority, which depends on upholding both of these, is itself eviscerated. In this way, the conclusion of the political arguments above finally finds demonstrative support.
Keywords
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
TOMTFI
Upload history
Archival date: 2017-01-11
View other versions
Added to PP index
2017-01-11

Total views
414 ( #12,493 of 56,043 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
21 ( #34,070 of 56,043 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.