The Future in Our Hands? - A Dialectical Argument against Legalising Euthanasia
Solidarity: The Journal of Catholic Social Thought and Secular Ethics 6 (1):Article 2 (2016)
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
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 )
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.