Universidad Nacional Experimental

Francisco de Miranda
Departamento de Idiomas
Aprendizaje Dialgico Interactivo
Coordinacin de Ingls
Trabajo escrito en grupo 25%
Fecha:___________
Nombre y Apellido:_____________________________________C.I:________________
Nombre y Apellido:_____________________________________C.I:________________
Nombre y Apellido:_____________________________________C.I:________________
Nombre y Apellido:_____________________________________C.I:________________
Nombre y Apellido:_____________________________________C.I:________________
1) Tomando en consideracin el texto facilitado y luego de haber realizado una
lectura al mismo, responda las siguientes interrogantes. Recuerde justificar
cada respuesta demostrando la comprensin del texto ledo.
A) De qu trata la lectura? (Idea global en 7 lneas ) (3pts)
B) Cul es el punto de vista del autor en relacin al tema? (3 pts.)
C) Cul fragmento del texto consideras ms relevante? Por qu? (2 pts.)
D) Extraiga 4 ideas principales (3 pts.)
E) De qu manera se relaciona la informacin mostrada en el texto, con tu vida social y
profesional? (3 pts.)
F) Segn lo ledo y comprendido del texto facilitado, qu tan importante y til podra ser la
informacin presentada en el texto. Justifica tu respuesta. (3 pts.)
G) Redacta 5 ideas conclusivas acerca del texto. (3 pts)

Ethics of euthanasia - introduction

This article introduces the debate around euthanasia. Should human beings have the right to decide on issues
of life and death?

What is Euthanasia?
Euthanasia is the termination of a very sick person's life in order to relieve them of
their suffering.
A person who undergoes euthanasia usually has an incurable condition. But there are
other instances where some people want their life to be ended.
In many cases, it is carried out at the person's request but there are times when they
may be too ill and the decision is made by relatives, medics or, in some instances, the
courts.
The term is derived from the Greek word euthanatos which means easy death.
Euthanasia is against the law in the UK where it is illegal to help anyone kill
themselves. Voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide can lead to imprisonment of up to
14 years.
The issue has been at the centre of very heated debates for many years and is
surrounded by religious, ethical and practical considerations.
The ethics of euthanasia
Euthanasia raises a number of agonising moral dilemmas:

is it ever right to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is undergoing severe
pain and suffering?

under what circumstances can euthanasia be justifiable, if at all?

is there a moral difference between killing someone and letting them die?
At the heart of these arguments are the different ideas that people have about the
meaning and value of human existence.
Should human beings have the right to decide on issues of life and death?
There are also a number of arguments based on practical issues.
Some people think that euthanasia shouldn't be allowed, even if it was morally right,
because it could be abused and used as a cover for murder.
Killing or letting die

Euthanasia can be carried out either by taking actions, including giving a lethal
injection, or by not doing what is necessary to keep a person alive (such as failing to
keep their feeding tube going).
'Extraordinary' medical care
It is not euthanasia if a patient dies as a result of refusing extraordinary or
burdensome medical treatment.
Euthanasia and pain relief
It's not euthanasia to give a drug in order to reduce pain, even though the drug causes
the patient to die sooner. This is because the doctor's intention was to relieve the pain,
not to kill the patient. This argument is sometimes known as the Doctrine of Double
Effect.
Mercy killing
Very often people call euthanasia 'mercy killing', perhaps thinking of it for someone
who is terminally ill and suffering prolonged, unbearable pain.
Why people want euthanasia
Most people think unbearable pain is the main reason people seek euthanasia, but
some surveys in the USA and the Netherlands showed that less than a third of requests
for euthanasia were because of severe pain.
Terminally ill people can have their quality of life severely damaged by physical
conditions such as incontinence, nausea and vomiting, breathlessness, paralysis and
difficulty in swallowing.
Psychological factors that cause people to think of euthanasia include depression,
fearing loss of control or dignity, feeling a burden, or dislike of being dependent.

Ethical problems of euthanasia

Does an individual who has no hope of recovery have the right to decide how and when
to end their life?
Why euthanasia should be allowed

Those in favour of euthanasia argue that a civilised society should allow people to die
in dignity and without pain, and should allow others to help them do so if they cannot
manage it on their own.
They say that our bodies are our own, and we should be allowed to do what we want
with them. So it's wrong to make anyone live longer than they want. In fact making
people go on living when they don't want to violates their personal freedom and human
rights.It's immoral, they say to force people to continue living in suffering and pain.
They add that as suicide is not a crime, euthanasia should not be a crime.
Why euthanasia should be forbidden
Religious opponents of euthanasia believe that life is given by God, and only God
should decide when to end it.
Other opponents fear that if euthanasia was made legal, the laws regulating it would
be abused, and people would be killed who didn't really want to die.
The legal position
Euthanasia is illegal in most countries, although doctors do sometimes carry out
euthanasia even where it is illegal.
Euthanasia is illegal in Britain. To kill another person deliberately is murder or
manslaughter, even if the other person asks you to kill them. Anyone doing so could
potentially face 14 years in prison.
Under the 1961 Suicide Act, it is also a criminal offence in Britain, punishable by 14
years' imprisonment, to assist, aid or counsel somebody in relation to taking their own
life.
Nevertheless, the authorities may decide not to prosecute in cases of euthanasia after
taking into account the circumstances of the death.
In September 2009 the Director of Public Prosecutions was forced by an appeal to the
House of Lords to make public the criteria that influence whether a person is
prosecuted. The factors put a large emphasis on the suspect knowing the person who
died and on the death being a one-off occurrence in order to avoid a prosecution.
(Legal position stated at September 2009)
Changing attitudes

The Times (24 January 2007) reported that, according to the 2007 British Social
Attitudes survey, 80% of the public said they wanted the law changed to give
terminally ill patients the right to die with a doctor's help.
In the same survey, 45% supported giving patients with non-terminal illnesses the
option of euthanasia. "A majority" was opposed to relatives being involved in a
patient's death.

People have the right to die

Human beings have the right to die when and how they want to
In...cases where there are no dependants who might exert pressure one way or the
other, the right of the individual to choose should be paramount. So long as the patient
is lucid, and his or her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no further
questions.
The Independent, March 2002
Many people think that each person has the right to control his or her body and life
and so should be able to determine at what time, in what way and by whose hand he
or she will die.
Behind this lies the idea that human beings should be as free as possible - and that
unnecessary restraints on human rights are a bad thing.
And behind that lies the idea that human beings are independent biological entities,
with the right to take and carry out decisions about themselves, providing the greater
good of society doesn't prohibit this. Allied to this is a firm belief that death is the end.
Religious objections
Religious opponents disagree because they believe that the right to decide when a
person dies belongs to God.
Secular objections
Secular opponents argue that whatever rights we have are limited by our obligations.
The decision to die by euthanasia will affect other people - our family and friends, and
healthcare professionals - and we must balance the consequences for them (guilt,
grief, anger) against our rights.
We should also take account of our obligations to society, and balance our individual
right to die against any bad consequences that it might have for the community in
general.

These

bad

consequences might

be

practical

such as

making

involuntary

euthanasia easier and so putting vulnerable people at risk.

There is also a political and philosophical objection that says that our individual right to
autonomy against the state must be balanced against the need to make the sanctity of
life an important, intrinsic, abstract value of the state.
Secular philosophers put forward a number of technical arguments, mostly based on
the duty to preserve life because it has value in itself, or the importance of regarding
all human beings as ends rather than means.

Other human rights imply a right to die

Without creating (or acknowledging) a specific right to die, it is possible to argue that
other human rights ought to be taken to include this right.
The right to life includes the right to die

The right to life is not a right simply to exist

The right to life is a right to life with a minimum quality and value

Death is the opposite of life, but the process of dying is part of life

Dying is one of the most important events in human life

Dying can be good or bad

People have the right to try and make the events in their lives as good as
possible

So they have the right to try to make their dying as good as possible

If the dying process is unpleasant, people should have the right to shorten it,
and thus reduce the unpleasantness

People also have obligations - to their friends and family, to their doctors and
nurses, to society in general

These obligations limit their rights

These obligations do not outweigh a person's right to refuse medical treatment

that they do not want

But they do prevent a patient having any right to be killed

But even if there is a right to die, that doesn't mean that doctors have a duty to
kill, so no doctor can be forced to help the patient who wants euthanasia.

The right not to be killed

The right to life gives a person the right not to be killed if they don't want to be.
Those in favour of euthanasia will argue that respect for this right not to be killed is
sufficient to protect against misuse of euthanasia, as any doctor who kills a patient
who doesn't want to die has violated that person's rights.
Opponents of euthanasia may disagree, and argue that allowing euthanasia will greatly
increase the risk of people who want to live being killed. The danger of violating the
right to life is so great that we should ban euthanasia even if it means violating the
right to die.
The rights to privacy and freedom of belief include a right to die
This is the idea that the rights to privacy and freedom of belief give a person the right
to decide how and when to die.
The European Convention on Human Rights gives a person the right to die

Not according to Britain's highest court.

It concluded that the right to life did not give any right to self-determination
over life and death, since the provisions of the convention were aimed at protecting
and preserving life.
English law already acknowledges that people have the right to die
This argument is based on the fact that the Suicide Act (1961) made it legal for people
to take their own lives.
Opponents of euthanasia may disagree:

The Suicide Act doesn't necessarily acknowledge a right to die;

it could simply acknowledge that you can't punish someone for succeeding at
suicide

and that it's inappropriate to punish someone so distressed that they want to
take their own life.
Euthanasia opponents further point out that there is a moral difference between
decriminalising something, often for practical reasons like those mentioned above, and
encouraging it.
They can quite reasonably argue that the purpose of the Suicide Act is not to allow
euthanasia, and support this argument by pointing out that the Act makes it a crime to

help someone commit suicide. This is true, but that provision is really there to make it
impossible to escape a murder charge by dressing the crime up as an assisted suicide.

Overview of anti-euthanasia arguments

It's possible to argue about the way we've divided up the arguments, and many
arguments could fall into more categories than we've used.
Ethical arguments

Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life

Accepting euthanasia accepts that some lives (those of the disabled or

sick) are worth less than others

Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary

euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable

Euthanasia might not be in a person's best interests

Euthanasia affects other people's rights, not just those of the patient
Practical arguments

Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary

There's no way of properly regulating euthanasia

Allowing euthanasia will lead to less good care for the terminally ill

Allowing euthanasia undermines the committment of doctors and nurses to

saving lives

Euthanasia may become a cost-effective way to treat the terminally ill

Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for
the terminally ill

Euthanasia undermines the motivation to provide good care for the dying, and
good pain relief

Euthanasia gives too much power to doctors

Euthanasia exposes vulnerable people to pressure to end their lives

Moral pressure on elderly relatives by selfish families

Moral pressure to free up medical resources

Patients who are abandoned by their families may feel euthanasia is the only
solution

Historical arguments

Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary

euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable
Religious arguments

Euthanasia is against the word and will of God

Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life

Suffering may have value

Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary

euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable.