Abstract

The arguments for and against voluntary and involuntary euthanasia are considered. . . . UMI ;A brief history of the problem of euthanasia is given. An ethically neutral definition of euthanasia is formulated in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. The distinctions between active and passive euthanasia and between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia are discussed. Within the category of passive euthanasia, two other distinctions are examined: the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary means of life support and the distinction between direct and indirect killing as defined by the principle of double effect. The distinction between ordinary and extraordinary means is rejected on the grounds that it must be either excessively relative or an arbitrary stipulation. The principle of double effect is rejected on the grounds that the causal sequence of the effects of an action with a double effect are irrelevant in judging the agent's responsibility in bringing about those effects. It is shown that there is no morally significant difference between active and passive euthanasia and that, therefore, either both are justified or neither is. The distinction between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia is expanded to the distinction between voluntary, involuntary, and nonvoluntary euthanasia: euthanasia is voluntary when performed with the consent of the patient, involuntary when performed without the consent of the patient, and nonvoluntary when performed upon a patient who is incapable of either consenting or refusing. The ability to consent is judged to be the relevant factor in determining which arguments and moral standards are applicable to the morality of each type of euthanasia. Since the patient is able to consent in both voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, the morality of these two types of euthanasia is considered simultaneously. The question of the morality of nonvoluntary euthanasia is treated separately. ;The purpose of this dissertation is to answer the question: is euthanasia ever morally justified and, if so, under what circumstances? The first half of the dissertation is devoted to an examination of the definition and varieties of euthanasia and the distinctions upon which they depend. The second half of the dissertation is devoted to an examination of the arguments for and against euthanasia