Discussion Points: Autonomy & Medical Intervention
Religious Studies: OCR A Level, topic 2.5.4
Should People Have Total Control Over Their Lives?
To have autonomy means to have the right or condition of self-government. This debate looks at whether or not people should or can have total autonomy over their lives.
People should have autonomy
- In Genesis, humans are given dominion over the earth. This implies they have complete autonomy and should be allowed to make decisions for themselves.
- In his work In Rethinking Life and Death (1994), Peter Singer sets out five quality of life commandments to replace those of the traditional sanctity of life position.
- For example, Singer believes we should recognise that the value of human life varies from case to case.
- We should also respect a person’s right to live or die.
People should not have autonomy
- Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable.
- Natural law and Kantian ethics argue that we do not have complete autonomy.
- Kant would argue that the categorical imperative is clear – if we do not want killing people universalised, then we should not accept euthanasia.
- Likewise, Aquinas’ precepts say that society should be orderly and innocent life should be protected. Autonomy goes against this.
Medical Intervention vs Medical Non-Intervention
This debate looks at whether or not it's morally different to medically intervene to end life and to not intervene to end life.
Morally different - religious view
- If someone takes direct action to end a person’s life, they are acting as if they were God.
- If God is the author of life, then it follows that he is the one who determines when it should end. It is not up to the individual whether he or she might add or subtract from his or her life or anyone else’s because life is a gift or a loan from God.
Morally different - legal view
- The law in the UK clearly states that there is a moral difference between medical intervention and non-intervention.
- Any act that directly ends a person’s life (whether voluntarily or not) is illegal.
Not morally different
- Joseph Fletcher would argue that the outcome determines whether something is morally acceptable or not.
- Fletcher would argue that there is no moral difference between intervention and non-intervention if the outcome is positive and loving.
Test yourself on Discussion Points: Autonomy & Medical Intervention
What determines if medical intervention and non-intervention are morally different, according to Joseph Fletcher?