Epicurus notoriously argued that death at no time is a harm because before death there is no harm and after death there is no victim. The denial that death can be a harm to the one who dies has been challenged by various claims including (1) death is eternally bad for the victim (Feldman), (2) it is before death that it is bad for the victim (Feinberg and Pitcher), (3) death is bad for the victim but at no particular time (...) (Nagel), and (4) it is at the time of death that death is bad for the victim (Lamont). Nagel's account is more plausible and is consistent with the view that the temporal location of the harm of untimely death is best understood as the time when the decedent might otherwise have lived. (edited). (shrink)

ABSTRACT Belgium legalised voluntary euthanasia in 2002, thus ending the long isolation of the Netherlands as the only country in which doctors could openly give lethal injections to patients who have requested help in dying. Meanwhile in Oregon, in the United States, doctors may prescribe drugs for terminally ill patients, who can use them to end their life – if they are able to swallow and digest them. But despite President Bush's oft‐repeated statements that his philosophy is to ‘trust individuals (...) to make the right decisions’ and his opposition to ‘distant bureaucracies’, his administration is doing its best to prevent Oregonians acting in accordance with a law that its voters have twice ratified. The situation regarding voluntary euthanasia around the world is therefore very much in flux. This essay reviews ethical arguments regarding voluntary euthanasia and physician‐assisted suicide from a utilitarian perspective. I shall begin by asking why it is normally wrong to kill an innocent person, and whether these reasons apply to aiding a person who, when rational and competent, asks to be killed or given the means to commit suicide. Then I shall consider more specific utilitarian arguments for and against permitting voluntary euthanasia. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThis paper examines how decisions to limit treatment to critically ill patients under uncertainty can be made rationally. Expected utility theory offers one way of making rational decisions under uncertainty. One problem with using this approach is that we may not know the value of each option. One rational course open is to treat until further information becomes available. However, treatment can limit the range of options open. With treatment, a patient may recover such that he no longer requires life‐supporting (...) treatment. However, his life may be not worth living. If active euthanasia of %on‐terminal’conditions is prohibited, the option of dying will no longer be available. Taking a rational‘wait and see’course may result in being trapped within an unbearable life. On the other hand, sometimes present practice‘lets nature takes its course'. Critically ill patients are allowed to die because it is believed that their lives will be not worth living. It is likely that some patients are allowed to die when there is some objective chance of worthwhile future life. This paper argues that a policy of treating critically ill patients until the nature of future options can be better evaluated, in company with an offer of subsequent euthanasia where appropriate, allows a more rational and humane approach to treatment limitation decisions under uncertainty. (shrink)