Humanist perspective:

Euthanasia
What is euthanasia?

Voluntary euthanasia, sometimes called ‘assisted

suicide’, is used in cases where the sufferer has
made it clear that he or she wishes to die and has
requested help to bring this about.
 
Non-voluntary euthanasia occurs when a person
cannot express a wish to die but it is believed to
be what they would have wanted (patients in
comas, cases of senile dementia, or other those
who cannot communicate for other reasons).
 
Involuntary euthanasia is when a patient is
capable of expressing a wish to die but does not
(this equates to murder).
What is euthanasia?

Active, or direct, euthanasia involves specific actions

used to bring about death (e.g. lethal drugs or
injections). This is currently illegal in the UK.
 
Passive euthanasia is the practice of withdrawing(pull out)
treatment and/or nourishment and allowing a patient to
die. This practice is widely carried out and generally
judged to be legal.
 
Indirect euthanasia is the practice of providing
treatment, such as pain relief, which has the side-effect
of hastening(speeding) death. This is also widely practiced
and generally considered legal if killing was not the
intention. This is sometimes referred to as the principle
of ‘double effect’.
What is euthanasia?

a spark of hope
Is it ever OK to help somebody to die?

‘I believe passionately that any individual

should have the right to choose, as far as it is
possible, the time and the conditions of their
death. Over the last hundred years we have
learned to be extremely good at living. But
sooner or later, and so often now it is later,
everybody dies. I think it’s time we learned
to be as good at dying as we are at living.’

Terry Pratchett, former patron of the

British Humanist Association (1948 – 2015)
Medical oaths

I will never do harm to anyone… to

please no one will I prescribe a
deadly drug nor give advice which
may cause his death.
Hippocrates (460 – 370 BCE)

I will listen to patients and respond to their

concerns and preferences… [and] respect
patients’ rights to reach decisions with [me]
about their treatment and care.
General Medical Council (2013)
Humanist beliefs
Humanists base their moral decisions on empathy, reason,
evidence, and respect for the dignity of each person.

Humanists recognise that all life is valuable but believe that

quality of life is also important when making decisions
about life and death.

They value human beings’ personal autonomy and believe

they should have the right to make their own decisions
about how they live and die.

If we value the freedom we have to choose how we live

our lives then why not the freedom to choose how we die?

What do you think a humanist might think about

euthanasia?

Humanist perspectives
I use evidence to help me decide what to
do and I see no good evidence that
legalising voluntary euthanasia will lead to
a ‘slippery slope’. People recognise a clear
distinction between voluntary and
involuntary euthanasia.
We should consider the consequences of
our actions on other people. However, in
the case of a terminally ill and suffering
patient, assisted suicide can sometimes be a
merciful release for everyone involved.
Should we force others to stay alive against
their wishes just for our own sake?
Euthanasia is not a replacement for palliative
care. Both can be part of a patient-centred
approach to end of life care.
If voluntary euthanasia is ‘playing
god’ then so is all medical
intervention such as taking drugs
or vaccinations to help us live
longer.
Human life is valuable but we should
also consider quality of life and if an
individual has decided on rational
grounds that he or she wants to end
their life, then we should respect that
decision.
Active euthanasia can often be quicker
and involve potentially less pain than
passive euthanasia. There is no moral
distinction between the two. The
intention and outcome are the same
(the death of the patient).
What do the public think?

80% of the population support a

change in the law on assisted
dying for terminally ill patients.
YouGov poll (2012)

(76% of religious people and

89% of the non-religious)
Quotes

‘Why [..] should the boundary of sacrosanct life

match the boundary of our species?’
Peter Singer, philosopher

‘Dogs do not have many advantages over

people, but one of them is extremely
important: euthanasia is not forbidden by law
in their case; animals have the right to a
merciful death.’
Milan Kundera,
The Unbearable Lightness of Being
Euthanasia: active, passive, or indirect?

In all the situations below the patient has asked the doctor to help them die.

1) The doctor decides to stop providing a life-saving drug to the patient.

2) The doctor administers a lethal injection to the patient.
3) The doctor provides additional pain relief to the patient knowing that this
will also kill them?

What was the intention in each situation?

What is the outcome in each situation?

Is there anything morally different between the situations?