Question 1

The decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, thus allowing her to die of dehydration, is a case of:

Accepted Answer

The decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube is an example of passive euthanasia because it involves withholding or withdrawing treatment that is keeping a person alive, rather than actively taking steps to end a person's life. The decision was made based on Schiavo's previously stated wishes and the assessment of her medical condition by doctors.

Question 2

All cases of euthanasia in which the patient has consented to the active bringing of his or her death are cases of

Accepted Answer

Voluntary euthanasia is when the patient has given informed consent for their own death to be actively brought about, which is the case in the scenario described. Involuntary euthanasia is when the patient does not give consent and nonvoluntary euthanasia is when the patient is unable to give consent due to their condition or circumstances. Passive euthanasia involves withholding or withdrawing treatment, not actively bringing about a patient's death.

Question 3

Which of the following is, according to the introduction to chapter 8, typically defined as the act or practice of killing or allowing someone to die?

Accepted Answer

The introduction to chapter 8 discusses the topic of euthanasia, which is typically defined as the act or practice of killing or allowing someone to die, often as a means to end their suffering. Therefore, the best choice is D) euthanasia.

Question 4

Cases in which a doctor is involved to some degree in assisting an individual to commit suicide are known as

Accepted Answer

Physician-assisted suicide involves a doctor providing assistance to a terminally ill patient who wishes to end their own life. Mercy killing and involuntary euthanasia involve the intentional killing of another person, and do not involve the same level of consent from the patient as physician-assisted suicide.

Question 5

Which of the following conditions would make a slippery-slope argument fallacious?

Accepted Answer

Both A and B are correct conditions that would make a slippery slope argument fallacious. If the envisioned results of the action or practice under consideration turn out not to be bad, then the argument cannot be valid. Similarly, if the central idea of the argument is not plausible, then the argument is not logically sound. Therefore, either condition would make the argument fallacious.

Question 6

If the killing/letting die distinction is morally relevant, then that would show that the following distinction is also morally relevant:

Accepted Answer

The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is directly related to the killing/letting die distinction. Active euthanasia involves actively causing the patient's death (similar to killing), while passive euthanasia involves withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment (similar to allowing the patient to die). Therefore, if the killing/letting die distinction is morally relevant, then the active/passive euthanasia distinction must also be morally relevant.

Question 7

Rachels believes that active euthanasia is better than passive euthanasia in cases where

Accepted Answer

Rachels believes that the important factor in deciding between active and passive euthanasia is the amount of suffering the patient will experience. If allowing the patient to die passively will result in more suffering than actively ending their life, then active euthanasia is the better choice. However, if allowing the patient to die passively will result in less suffering, then passive euthanasia is the better choice.

Question 8

Rachels compares the cases of Smith and Jones to show that

Accepted Answer

Rachels argues that the moral difference between killing and letting die is not inherent in the action itself, but rather in the consequences and motives behind the action. In the cases of Smith and Jones, both actions (killing and letting die) have the same outcome (the death of the person), and both have the same motive (greed). Thus, Rachels concludes that killing is not inherently morally worse than letting die.

Question 9

In Rachels's thought experiment with Smith and Jones, Smith's action (i.e., his holding the child underwater) is supposed to be an example of

Accepted Answer

In Rachels's thought experiment, Smith's action of holding the child underwater is an active action that directly causes the child's death. This is an example of killing, rather than letting die, which would involve withholding treatment or intervention that could save the child's life.

Question 10

In Rachels's thought experiment with Smith and Jones, Jones's action (i.e., his watching the child, who slipped accidentally, drowned in the tub) is supposed to be an example of

Accepted Answer

Jones's action of watching the child and not saving him can be considered an example of letting die. Jones had the opportunity to save the child but chose not to act, resulting in the child's death. This differs from killing, which would involve actively causing harm or death to the child in some way, and assisted suicide, which would involve intentionally helping someone end their own life.

Question 11

Which of the following best characterizes Rachels's argument?

Accepted Answer

Rachels argues that there is no inherent moral difference between killing and letting die, and therefore there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. He argues that the moral distinction made between the two is based on a mistaken belief that the latter is less bad because it involves "allowing nature to take its course". He argues that this distinction is irrelevant, and that what matters is the intention of the action and the outcome it produces. Therefore, he concludes that both active and passive euthanasia are morally permissible, provided they are done with the intention of relieving suffering and respecting the autonomy and dignity of the patient.

Question 12

Philippa Foot explains the moral relevance of the killing/letting die distinction by appealing to

Accepted Answer

Philippa Foot discusses the moral relevance of the killing/letting die distinction by considering both rights of noninterference and rights to goods and services, as these concepts help to differentiate between direct actions and omissions in moral philosophy.

Question 13

Which of the following is an example of a duty that corresponds to a right to goods and service?

Accepted Answer

John's duty to return the car he borrowed from Mary corresponds to Mary's right to her property, which is a right to goods.

Question 14

The question of whether the killing/letting die distinction is morally relevant can be posed by asking whether we are equally to blame for allowing people in Third World countries to starve as we would be for
)

Accepted Answer

The answer of The question of whether the killing/letting die...

Question 15

Foot's Rescue I and Rescue II cases are intended to

Accepted Answer

Foot's Rescue I and Rescue II both involve a harmful sequence that is already in progress, rather than evil intentions to initiate the harm. In Rescue I, Foot intervenes to stop the chain of events from continuing and ultimately save a life. In Rescue II, he fails to intervene and the negative consequences escalate. Therefore, the cases primarily demonstrate the contrast between originating a harmful sequence and allowing it to continue, making B the best choice.

Question 16

Callahan is against the legalization of euthanasia because he believes legalization would

Accepted Answer

Callahan argues that legalizing euthanasia would teach society that life can be ended based on subjective judgments about its value, which he believes is a dangerous lesson.

Question 17

Callahan discusses the Dutch Commission on Euthanasia in 1990 to show that

Accepted Answer

Callahan references the Dutch Commission on Euthanasia to make the point that while laws allowing euthanasia may be put in place with good intentions, there is still the risk of abuse and doctors may not always report their actions. This supports both options A and B.

Question 18

Callahan cites the Oregon Death with Dignity Legal Defense and the Education Center's finding that "after four full years . . . there have been no missteps, abuses or coercive tendencies" regarding laws permitting euthanasia. In response he argues that

Accepted Answer

The answer of Callahan cites the Oregon Death with Dignity...

Question 19

Michael Gill begins by discussing arguments against autonomy-based justifications of euthanasia. According to these arguments, autonomy-based justifications are contradictory because

Accepted Answer

The argument is that euthanasia contradicts autonomy because it ends a person's life, thereby eliminating their ability to make any future autonomous decisions.

Question 20

According to Gill, the moral value of autonomy mostly consists in

Accepted Answer

According to Gill, the moral value of autonomy lies in the ability to make important life decisions based on our deepest values. This means that we are able to act in accordance with our own beliefs and desires, rather than being coerced or influenced by external forces. Autonomy allows us to live our lives according to our own principles and to maintain our integrity as individuals. It is also important to note that autonomy is not absolute and can be limited by certain ethical and legal considerations.

Quiz 8: Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide