The Sanctity of Life
Sanicty of life is the most important factor when considering euthanasia .Discuss
A believer in the sanctity of life would argue that only God has the right to give or take life as he created all humans imago dei. If someone believed this, they would argue that under no circumstances does anyone have the right to take their life, or let anyone else take their life for them. Natural law accepts the sanctity of life argument, but would also reject euthanasia due to the primary precept (which is absolute therefore cannot be broken under any circumstances) “preserve innocent life”. For instance, even in the case of Dianne Pretty who had motor neuron disease and was facing a painful death, she would not have been allowed to die, despite saying “I want to have a quick death without suffering”. Both the sanctity of life thesis and the primary precepts would stop her being autonomous.
Arguably some people would say that Quality of life the idea that people should be able to enjoy intellectual activities, is perhaps the most important issue when considering euthanasia. If someone has a high quality of life many would argue that they should not be allowed to die, even if they had explicitly asked to. Their quality of life would overrule their autonomy. Certainly Singer would argue that someone with a high quality of life, for instance someone with Alzheimer’s, would not have the right to die provided they can still enjoy higher pleasures such as reading or going to the theatre. If someone has a high quality of life, surely this has to be considered, for what is the point of someone who can still engage in everyday activities dying?
However, perhaps someone’s quality of life is not as important as may initially appear. Perhaps what is more important is that they have the right to be autonomous. Kant would argue that everyone should be able to make their own autonomous decisions; doing something because society wants them to is not autonomous, and neither is doing
A believer in the sanctity of life would argue that only God has the right to give or take life as he created all humans imago dei. If someone believed this, they would argue that under no circumstances does anyone have the right to take their life, or let anyone else take their life for them. Natural law accepts the sanctity of life argument, but would also reject euthanasia due to the primary precept (which is absolute therefore cannot be broken under any circumstances) “preserve innocent life”. For instance, even in the case of Dianne Pretty who had motor neuron disease and was facing a painful death, she would not have been allowed to die, despite saying “I want to have a quick death without suffering”. Both the sanctity of life thesis and the primary precepts would stop her being autonomous.
Arguably some people would say that Quality of life the idea that people should be able to enjoy intellectual activities, is perhaps the most important issue when considering euthanasia. If someone has a high quality of life many would argue that they should not be allowed to die, even if they had explicitly asked to. Their quality of life would overrule their autonomy. Certainly Singer would argue that someone with a high quality of life, for instance someone with Alzheimer’s, would not have the right to die provided they can still enjoy higher pleasures such as reading or going to the theatre. If someone has a high quality of life, surely this has to be considered, for what is the point of someone who can still engage in everyday activities dying?
However, perhaps someone’s quality of life is not as important as may initially appear. Perhaps what is more important is that they have the right to be autonomous. Kant would argue that everyone should be able to make their own autonomous decisions; doing something because society wants them to is not autonomous, and neither is doing