Question 1

Which of the following statements best describes Gill's response to the argument that the Oregon physician-assisted law falsely assumes that doctors are qualified to judge whether a life is worth living?

Accepted Answer

Gill's response to the argument is that the Oregon physician-assisted law only requires doctors to make medical decisions about the patient's life expectancy and prognosis. This suggests that the argument is based on a misunderstanding of the law's requirements. Therefore, option D is the best choice.

Question 2

Why, according to Gill, does Leon Kass think the notion of being "better off dead" is incoherent?

Accepted Answer

Gill explains that Leon Kass thinks the notion of being "better off dead" is incoherent because dead people no longer exist and thus cannot benefit from choosing to die.

Question 3

Which of the following best describes Gill's response to Kass's argument that the notion of being "better off dead" is incoherent?

Accepted Answer

Gill argues that even if the notion of being "better off dead" is incoherent, it is still coherent to have a preference for being dead over being alive in certain circumstances.

Question 4

Gill describes Kass, Pelegrino, and Callahan as arguing that the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is morally acceptable while physician-assisted suicide is not. In their view, this is because

Accepted Answer

Kass, Pelegrino, and Callahan argue that the main intention of physicians who withdraw treatment is to relieve suffering, not kill the patient. They believe that killing and letting die are not morally equivalent, and therefore, withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is morally acceptable, while physician-assisted suicide is not.

Question 5

According to Velleman, who, if anyone, should decide whether a patient receives euthanasia?

Accepted Answer

The answer of According to Velleman, who, if anyone, should...

Question 6

Velleman believes that euthanasia can be justified on the basis of

Accepted Answer

The answer of Velleman believes that euthanasia can be justified...

Question 7

Velleman worries that, by offering a patient the option of euthanasia,

Accepted Answer

Velleman worries that offering a patient the option of euthanasia may harm the patient by giving them the impression that their life is not worth living, and they should end it. This could ultimately lead to the patient making a decision that harms themselves.

Question 8

Velleman worries that the word dignity is sometimes used (incorrectly) to glorify which of the following:

Accepted Answer

In Velleman's article, he argues that the use of dignity, particularly in the context of end-of-life care, is often used to glorify Western culture's values of youth, strength, and independence, and therefore, is used incorrectly. He believes that dignity should not be tied to one's abilities or qualities, but rather, should be seen as an inherent characteristic of being human. Therefore, the correct use of dignity should not be tied to a patient's capacity for self-determination or worthiness of being cared for, but rather, should be a universal characteristic that all individuals possess.

Question 9

One way to value a patient's autonomy is by aiming to maximize his or her effective options. When we value a patient's autonomy in this way, what, according to Velleman, do we value?

Accepted Answer

When we aim to maximize a patient's effective options, we are valuing their opportunities for self-determination, or the ability to make choices and decisions for themselves. This means respecting their autonomy and giving them the necessary information and resources to exercise their autonomy.

Question 10

Velleman believes that the option of euthanasia may harm some patients. What does he think is the most significant way in which this might happen?

Accepted Answer

Velleman argues that offering euthanasia as an option can burden patients with the need to justify their choice to continue living, which can be psychologically harmful.

Question 11

By definition, euthanasia involves actively intervening to end a person's life (e.g., administering lethal amounts of pain medication).

Accepted Answer

Euthanasia involves intentionally ending a person's life through active means, such as administering a lethal dose of medication. This is distinct from assisted suicide, in which a person is provided the means to end their own life but administers it themselves.

Question 12

Kant argued that suicide is morally wrong because of the grief and suffering it causes.

Accepted Answer

Kant's argument against suicide is based on the idea that individuals have a duty to preserve their own life, as well as the lives of others. He did not specifically cite the grief and suffering caused by suicide as the basis of his argument.

Question 13

According to an ethic of prima facie duties, if euthanasia and suicide count as harms, then one has a prime facie obligation not to engage in such actions.

Accepted Answer

According to an ethic of prima facie duties, certain duties are binding unless overridden by other duties. If euthanasia and suicide are considered harmful, then an individual has a prima facie obligation not to engage in such activities unless other duties override this duty.

Question 14

Intentionally taking human life is always wrong according to natural law theory.

Accepted Answer

According to natural law theory, human life is considered inherently valuable and sacred. Therefore, intentionally taking human life is seen as a violation of the natural law principle of respecting human life, and thus always considered wrong.

Question 15

James Rachels argues that the active/passive euthanasia distinction is morally relevant.

Accepted Answer

James Rachels argues that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is not morally relevant, suggesting that if one is permissible, the other should be as well.

Question 16

According to Rachels, killing is intrinsically morally worse than letting someone die.

Accepted Answer

Rachels argues that there is no intrinsic moral difference between killing and letting die; the moral difference depends on the context and intentions behind the actions.

Question 17

Rachels's understanding of the 1973 AMA policy is that it forbids all mercy killing but permits some cases of allowing a person to die.

Accepted Answer

Rachel's understanding is correct. The 1973 AMA policy forbids euthanasia or mercy killing, but it allows doctors to withhold or withdraw medical treatment in cases where it is deemed to be futile, or where the treatment would only prolong the patient's suffering. This is known as the doctrine of double effect.

Question 18

Rachels claims that the cessation of treatment (in cases of passive euthanasia) falls under the AMA's category of "the intentional termination of the life of one human being by another."

Accepted Answer

Rachels argues that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is morally irrelevant and that both are intentional acts that result in the death of the patient. Therefore, the cessation of treatment in cases of passive euthanasia can be considered an intentional termination of life by another person, which falls under the AMA's definition of euthanasia.

Question 19

Philippa Foot argues that the difference between act and omission fully explains the difference between killing and letting die.

Accepted Answer

Philippa Foot argues that the distinction between killing and letting die is not solely explained by the act-omission distinction, as moral considerations and intentions also play a crucial role.

Question 20

According to Foot, whenever a right to noninterference is violated, a right to goods/services is overridden.

Accepted Answer

Foot's ethical theory does not claim that a right to noninterference always involves overriding a right to goods/services; these are distinct types of rights and their interactions depend on specific contexts.

Quiz 8: Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide