Today I attended an excellent lecture by Professor Tännsjö on the subject of Euthanasia. He presented arguments from the virtue ethics tradition (absolutely against the practice) and the rights-based tradition (absolutely for the practice). If continued by presenting the utilitarian approach which he argued was mainly positive.
The goal of his arguments was to present the idea that intentional active aid to die was something which should be discussed in the official channels in Sweden. The reason why this has not been done, according to Tännsjö, could be found in five arguments against euthanasia which he presented and then debunked.
Arguments against active right to die:
– That such a right is unnecessary. This is a silly argument since it apparently is necessary for those who desire this right.
– Such a right would be a threat to the palliative care. Again strange argument since the right to die would not be made compulsory in any form.
– Pressure placed on the dying to â??askâ?? to die. I didnâ??t think that Tännsjö really answered this one properly. He claimed that this would not happen.
– Economic arguments. There would be pressure placed upon the health care system to save money. This is not an adequate argument since it is not compulsory to desire to die, no great saving could be made.
– The slippery slope. To me this argument is really silly since it is about creating safeguards. I have never liked this argument since it is a call to paranoia. Loosely based on: If we let some people do it, then they all will do it and where would it all end?
An interesting point that came up was the fact that suicide among the elderly had decreased in Holland after euthanasia became legal. In addition to this the amount of research on how and why the aged die is much more active in Holland since they allow euthanasia.
On the whole a very interesting way to spend a Sunday afternoon.