You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
As medicine has gained the power both to prolong life and to end it painlessly, the questions of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide — the issues the AQA specification names under "human life and death" — have become unavoidable. A century ago, most people died quickly of infection or injury; today many die slowly of degenerative disease, often after a period in which life can be sustained well past the point at which the patient would once have died, and this new power is the source of the dilemma. The central conflict is between the sanctity of life, which holds that no innocent human life may deliberately be ended, and the twin claims of personal autonomy and quality of life, which hold that a competent sufferer may choose the manner and timing of death. This lesson applies natural moral law, situation ethics and virtue ethics, together with Kant and utilitarianism, to that conflict, paying close attention to two distinctions philosophers have built whole positions around — the acts/omissions distinction and the doctrine of double effect — and to the challenge laid down by James Rachels. As with the beginning of life, the aim is to watch each theory reason its way to a verdict and to locate where it is vulnerable, not to collect opinions.
Examiners penalise loose use of terms, so precision matters. Voluntary euthanasia ends a person's life at their explicit, informed request. Non-voluntary euthanasia ends the life of someone unable to consent (a patient in a persistent vegetative state; a gravely disabled newborn), on a judgement of their best interests. Involuntary euthanasia ends a life against the person's wishes and is, morally and legally, murder. Cutting across this is the active/passive distinction: active euthanasia is a deliberate act that causes death (a lethal injection); passive euthanasia is allowing death by withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. Assisted suicide (or "assisted dying") differs again: the person is provided with the means to end their own life — typically a lethal prescription — but performs the final act themselves, as permitted under the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (1997) and in the Netherlands and Belgium (both 2002).
Key term: Voluntary euthanasia — the intentional ending of a competent person's life, by another, at that person's explicit and informed request, to relieve suffering.
Key term: Autonomy — literally "self-rule"; the capacity and right of a competent person to govern their own life by their own reasoned choices, including (on the pro-euthanasia view) choices about their own death.
The Suicide Act 1961 decriminalised suicide itself in England and Wales but made it an offence, carrying up to fourteen years' imprisonment, to assist or encourage another's suicide. Active euthanasia remains murder: a doctor who deliberately ends a patient's life, even at the patient's request, commits homicide. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 allows a competent adult to make a legally binding advance decision refusing specified treatment. The courts have repeatedly declined to create a right to assistance in dying — in R (Pretty) (2002), R (Nicklinson) (2014) and R (Conway) (2018) — while suggesting that any change is for Parliament; assisted-dying bills (Lord Falconer's, and more recently Kim Leadbeater's, introduced in 2024) have been debated but not, at the time of writing, enacted into law. Applying ethics to this settlement — rather than arguing in a vacuum — is exactly what the strongest scripts do.
The religious case against euthanasia rests on sanctity of life: human life is a gift held in trust, and its deliberate ending usurps a prerogative that belongs to God — "the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away" (Job 1:21). On this view life's value is intrinsic and not forfeited by suffering or dependence, so even a sincere request to die cannot make killing right. The opposing case rests on two ideas. Autonomy, in the tradition of John Stuart Mill's harm principle — that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others" — holds that if my death harms no one else, the decision is mine to make. Quality of life holds that what we value is not bare biological existence but a life containing the goods that make it worth living; once irreversible suffering has stripped those away, continued existence may no longer be in the person's interest. Peter Singer presses both: the value of a life, he argues, depends on its quality and on the preferences of the person whose life it is, so a competent, settled request to die, in conditions of irremediable suffering, should be honoured. Singer's deeper claim is that the doctrine of the sanctity of human life is, untethered from quality and preference, a piece of unjustified "speciesism" — it accords absolute protection to a biologically human organism regardless of whether there is anyone there, in the morally relevant sense, to be harmed or benefited.
Jonathan Glover (b. 1941), in Causing Death and Saving Lives (1977), provides one of the most careful secular treatments. Glover rejects the bare sanctity-of-life principle on the ground that what makes killing wrong is that it deprives a person of a worthwhile future life and overrides their autonomy; where the future holds only suffering and the person autonomously wishes to die, neither wrong is committed, so the central objection to killing lapses. Glover is no enthusiast for easy answers, however: he insists on the importance of the side-effects of any social policy — the effect on relationships, on trust, and on the protection of the vulnerable — so that even granting that an individual act of voluntary euthanasia may be right, the question of whether to legalise it remains a distinct, consequence-sensitive matter. Glover thus models the very move a strong essay should make: separating the morality of the individual act from the wisdom of the general rule. The phrase "quality of life" should therefore be handled carefully in an essay: it can mean either the sufferer's own judgement that their life is no longer worth living (an autonomy-respecting use) or a third party's judgement that someone else's life is not worth living (the use that invites the disability-rights objection that euthanasia devalues disabled lives). The two are very different, and conflating them is a common error.
Key term: Sanctity of life vs quality of life — the contrast between the view that human life is intrinsically and equally valuable whatever its condition, and the view that the value of a life depends on its character, prospects and the goods it contains.
For Aquinas, the preservation of life is a primary precept, and to take one's own life or to have it taken intentionally contradicts this precept and the natural inclination to self-preservation; euthanasia and assisted suicide are therefore intrinsically wrong, whatever the suffering. But natural law is not vitalism — it does not demand that life be prolonged by every possible means. Catholic teaching distinguishes ordinary from extraordinary (or "proportionate" from "disproportionate") means: there is no duty to use burdensome, futile or excessively costly treatment merely to postpone death, so withdrawing a ventilator from a dying patient for whom it offers no benefit is permissible. The crucial line is between intending death (forbidden) and accepting death as the unavoidable accompaniment of ceasing futile treatment or of adequate pain relief (permitted). The doctrine of double effect does much of this work, and is examined below; the Declaration on Euthanasia (1980) codifies the distinctions. Natural law thus reaches a nuanced position: a firm prohibition on killing combined with a refusal to fetishise mere biological continuance.
The doctrine of double effect (DDE) permits an act with a good and a bad effect where the act is not in itself wrong, the bad effect is foreseen but not intended, the bad effect is not the means to the good, and there is a proportionate reason. In end-of-life care its classic application is the administration of opioids such as morphine to control severe pain in a dying patient, in doses that may also shorten life: the death is foreseen but the intention is pain relief, the death is not the means by which pain is relieved, and the patient's terminal suffering supplies proportionate reason. English law absorbed this reasoning in R v Adams (1957), where Devlin J directed that a doctor is entitled to give pain relief proper to the patient's needs even if it incidentally shortens life. The companion acts/omissions distinction holds that there is a morally significant difference between doing something that causes death (an act) and allowing death by not intervening (an omission) — between killing and letting die. On this distinction passive euthanasia (withdrawing futile treatment) can be permissible where active euthanasia is not, because the former merely allows nature to take its course while the latter intends and produces death.
Key term: Doctrine of double effect — the principle that an action with a foreseen bad side-effect may be permissible if the act itself is good or neutral, the bad effect is not intended nor used as the means to the good, and there is a proportionate reason.
Key term: Acts/omissions distinction — the claim that there is a morally significant difference between actively doing something that causes a harm (killing) and merely allowing a harm to occur by not intervening (letting die).
Two clarifications matter before evaluating these tools. First, the DDE turns entirely on the agent's intention, and intention is not the same as foresight: the doctor administering morphine foresees that death may come sooner but aims at pain relief, and would, if asked, prefer that the patient live longer pain-free. Critics complain that this makes morality hostage to the private contents of a doctor's mind — two doctors performing the identical act with identical effects could be judged differently because one "intended" and the other merely "foresaw" the death. Defenders answer that intention genuinely matters elsewhere in morality (we distinguish murder from manslaughter precisely by it), so it is not arbitrary to let it matter here. Second, the acts/omissions distinction is doing heavy lifting in UK law: Bland permitted the withdrawal of nutrition (an "omission," letting die) that would have been murder if done by lethal injection (an "act," killing), even though the patient's death was equally certain and equally intended in the sense of being chosen. Whether that contrast can bear the moral weight placed on it is exactly what Rachels denies.
James Rachels (1941–2003), in "Active and Passive Euthanasia" (1975), mounted the most influential attack on this whole apparatus. Conventional medical ethics, he observed, allows doctors to let patients die (passive) but forbids them to kill (active), as if letting die were always more humane. Rachels argues the opposite: if death is genuinely in the patient's interest, then a quick, painless active killing is more merciful than a slow death by dehydration after treatment is withdrawn, so the conventional doctrine can actually increase suffering. To show that the bare distinction between killing and letting die carries no moral weight in itself, he offers his famous pair of cases: Smith drowns his young cousin in the bath to gain an inheritance; Jones plans the same but, as he enters, the child slips, hits his head and drowns unaided while Jones stands ready to push him under, doing nothing. Smith kills; Jones merely lets die — yet we judge them equally monstrous, which shows that the killing/letting-die distinction, by itself, makes no moral difference. What matters, Rachels concludes, is the intention and the outcome, not whether death came by act or omission; and if a passive killing motivated by mercy is permissible, an active one with the same motive and better outcome should be too. He drives the medical point home with a contrast of his own: a baby born with Down's syndrome and an intestinal blockage was, in the practice of his day, sometimes "allowed to die" by withholding the simple operation that would have cleared the blockage — a slow death by dehydration over days — whereas a quick injection would have been forbidden as "killing." If the decision that this life should end has already been taken, Rachels argues, the insistence on the slow route over the fast one is not moral scruple but cruelty dressed as principle.
Defenders of the distinction make several replies. They argue that Rachels's Smith-and-Jones cases are rigged, because both agents share a murderous intention and stand ready to act, so the example holds intention fixed and therefore cannot isolate the moral effect of the act/omission difference — all it shows is that bad intention plus a death is bad either way, which no one denied. They add that in ordinary medicine the doctor who withdraws a futile ventilator does not intend the patient's death (they would be glad if the patient breathed unaided), so the morphine and withdrawal cases are disanalogous to a mercy killing, and the distinction does its real work precisely where intentions differ. Some go further and defend a genuine moral asymmetry between killing and letting die — that we have a stringent negative duty not to kill but only a weaker positive duty to save, which is why a stranger who murders is worse than a stranger who fails to send money that would save a life. Rachels's challenge and these replies pit two carefully argued positions against each other and resist an easy verdict, which is exactly why the exchange is such fertile ground for AO2: a strong answer will adjudicate it, not merely report it.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.