medical ethics essay

Is it old fashioned to allow religious principles to guide medical ethics?

There is ongoing conflict between religion and science. Religion tells us what we should do whereas science tells us what we can do, therefore, it makes no sense to allow religion to overrule science. If we consider the medical study of euthanasia, religion would prevent its legalisation as it not compatible with religious principles and teachings, therefore, this is preventing us from developing in scientific discoveries and experiments. I am in full agreement that it is old fashioned to regard sanctity of life as the guiding following principle in medical ethics due to its dependency on God whom there is no evidence for, and its lack of universality. A guiding principle like quality of life would be a much more suitable approach.

The view from sanctity of life is an intrinsic view meaning life is intrinsically valuable and good because of what it is. Biblical quotes in support of this are Augustine, “Life is a precious gift from God and not ours to dispose of as we wish.” Also Job, “If God is the author of life then it follows that He should determine when it ends.” These quotes are essentially stating that God is the creator and the giver of life, therefore we as humans do not have the right to end it. If we relate this to the medical study of euthanasia, the argument of sanctity of life would be in full disagreement. Euthanasia requires the killing of another human therefore this goes against Gods plans and therefore is not compatible with religious principles and beliefs. There are certain strengths to this argument such as t treats all life, regardless of external factors, as valuable. On the other hand, there are certain flaws to this argument. The argument of sanctity of life rests its faith in the belief of God, and as there is no valuable, empirically observable evidence for Gods existence, the argument is instantly flawed. To add, we already interfere with Gods plans when we save people’s lives, as quoted by Daniel Maguire “We already interfere with Gods plan when we save lives, so why not interfere to end them.” Thus concluding, if it is helping that person or freeing them from pain, why shouldn’t this rule apply in such circumstances? Overall, I believe the weaknesses of this argument prove why it is old fashioned to allow religious principles to guide medical ethics due to their dependency on a divine entity in which there is no evidence for and the contradictory nature of the argument.

The argument from quality of life is the extrinsic view that life is special because of what it can do. If we consider this view to the case study of Reg Crew, we arrive at conclusions that this principle is supportive of the medical study of euthanasia. Crew suffered from motor neurone disease leaving hum completely paralysed and completely dependent on his wife for care. Therefore, he felt his life was no longer valuable and opted for euthanasia. This argument does have some strength, for example, it respects the choices and wishes of the individual as they are the ones most affected by the outcome of their decisions. There are however some weaknesses to this argument, including its subjective nature. This was perceived in the case study of Daniel James. James was a 23 year old rugby player who was left paralysed from the chest down after a spinal injury in a rugby scrum. James felt his life was no longer worth living due to his paralysis, therefore, he chose to end his life at Dignitas- the euthanasia clinic.  People felt that James was too young to end his life, and that his injuries were not sufficient enough that he could qualify for euthanasia. For example, Matt Hampson suffered similar injuries and went onto live a very promising life running a successful charity website and raising money for people suffering similar injuries, concluding that what one person may think is a poor quality of life another may disagree with. To further this view, who knows what kind of medical discoveries could have been made in years to come that could have benefited James’ injuries in some way. To add, what about those who can’t express their own autonomy, for example if we look at the case study of Richard Rudd. Rudd was left completely paralysed and brain damaged after a motorcycle accident, He had always expressed that he would want to die if He was ever left in such a state, therefore his family was fighting for his life machine to be turned off. However, when He was asked the question of whether He wanted to die he communicated with his eyes stating He wanted to live. Therefore, this indicates how people who cannot express their own autonomy raises mass issues. A quote in summary of this is- Boyle, "A person in  a pvs still has bodily life which is good in itself." To conclude, this could lead to a slippery where all the imperfect members of society are euthanasia. On the other hand, these weaknesses are easily rebutted. In response to Daniel James it should not matter if people do not agree with your decision for euthanasia as they are not the ones ultimately affected, therefore, their disagreement is irrelevant if it was that person wants to do. To add, subjectivity only poses a problem when the person cannot express their own autonomy and these are the minority, therefore why should the majority suffer. Finally, to conclude, the Netherlands has legal euthanasia and this is not a holocaust like state as quoted by Helgha Khuse, therefore, why would this be any different if it was legalised in the UK. Overall I believe this argument would be a much more sustainable leading principle as it is universally applicable and considers the individual despite any other circumstance.

The argument from Autonomy states that life belong to the individual as they are the ones most affected by the outcomes of their decisions. This was summarised by J.S.Mill who quoted “If I am the owner of my own life then I have the autonomy to dispose of it as I wish.” This argument would therefore agree with euthanasia, as like autonomy, euthanasia respects the wishes of the individual. There are overwhelming strengths to this argument, such as; it respects the wishes of the person most affected. There are some flaws to this view, Plato argued that “suicide pollutes society.” He said that the more people who opt for suicide the less people there will be to contribute to society. To add, it devalues the sick and disabled from society and portrays them of less value than other people stating how some people are legible for death and others are not. On the other hand, Hume argued that “A person who withdraws from society does no harm, He only ceases to do good.” Here is arguing that a caring society should respect the wishes of the individual when what they are proposing does not directly harm anyone else. Overall, I believe this argument highlights how it is old fashioned to allow religious principles to guide medical ethics as argument like autonomy are more appealing in a modern society as they benefit everyone, unlike religious principles which only appeal to followers of God.

The view of utilitarianism follows the principle “The greatest good for the greatest number.” It claims that life has no intrinsic value and what benefits the majority is best. This argument would agree with euthanasia if universal utility was achieved, For example, in the case of Reg Crew, who as completely dependent on his wife, his decision to end his life would have inevitable served the majority as it freed Crew from his mental torment and his wife did not have to bear the burden of his permanent care or have to see him suffer anymore. Therefore, in cases like this, utilitarianism would be in favour of euthanasia. There are strengths to this argument, for example, it is a clear non-religious principle that offers a clear method for decision making. There are indeed overwhelming weaknesses to this argument. The minority are left vulnerable and unaccounted for. Also, this theory relies on predicting the consequences, and these are not always reliable. For example, a woman may have an abortion believing it will bring her happiness, but what if she is left infertile by this procedure? Widespread utility will not have been achieved. To add, some things are intrinsically wrong no matter how much utility the case. For example, the Holocaust was necessary for Germans in helping them win the war, however, this does not justify the murder of over 6 million Jews. These weaknesses however are easily overpowered by the overwhelming strengths and responses. There is no guiding rule that will please everyone, at least this theory attempt’s to please to majority. The theory is similar to Western democracy, which prides itself on pleasing the majority. To conclude, the declaration of human rights has been put in place to prevent crimes of such nature from ever re-occurring, therefore, this theory would never result in such drastic amount of misery. Overall, I believe this argument seeks to indicate how it is old fashioned to allow religious principles to guide medical ethics as they do not benefit the majority, unlike utilitarianism which ultimately seeks to please the majority in all it does, and it is a secular argument meaning it can be universally applied.

The argument of doctor’s integrity looks at how doctors may be affected by things that they have to do. This was seen in the analogy of Jim and the Indians displayed by Bernard Williams “Jim can either do nothing and let 20 Indians die, or He can kill 1 to save 19, but what about the effect on his character.” This is ultimately suggesting that doctors, especially those in the field of euthanasia do have to complete hard tasks to benefit the majority, and it does change the perspective of their character and how people perceive them, but they still do it to benefit that person. There are strengths to this argument such as it allows us to consider the effects on the persona administrating the treatment. There are overwhelming flaws to this argument for example, it is the patient who is most affected, not the doctor, therefore, how people perceive them or how they feel is ultimately irrelevant. To add, patients seek clinical skill-not moral guidance from their doctors. To further this view, this could go too far. For example, some doctors have already refused to prescribe the contraception pill on the ground of their religious beliefs. These weaknesses are however easily disputed by the strengths of this argument. It is possible to protect both the doctor and the patient. An example of this is the 1967 abortion act, this legislation allowed doctors who did not want to permit abortions to refuse to complete the act, however, patients could refer to another doctor who felt comfortable permitting abortions. Overall I believe this argument proves why it is old fashioned to allow religious principles to guide medical ethics as it does not consider the effects of the patient or the doctor, it simply looks at whether it is compatible with their religious views.

To conclude, I believe it is old fashioned to allow religious principles to guide medical ethics, Science is based on fact and evidence, whereas religion is dependent on a faith in which there is no scientific evidence for, concluding that it should not be allowed to rule medicine. Religious beliefs on a modern society do not apply to the masses, as people are moving away from the study of the bible and religious views, therefore, a universally applicable theory like the quality of life would be a much more appealing guiding principle.