Provide responses to the following questions using the topic you selected in Week 2. Your responses to this worksheet will help you in Week 4 when you craft your Persuasive Essay.
1. What is your selected topic? <Enter your selected topic here.>
2. The thesis statement will provide direction to your essay. Write your thesis statement for your selected topic. Thesis statement: <Enter your thesis statement here.>
3. Research questions help you to guide your research in finding materials appropriate for your essay. These questions should be answerable by your thesis statement. Provide three research questions that will direct your research for this essay:
a. <Enter your first research question here.>
b. <Enter your second research question here.>
c. <Enter your third research question here.>
4. In 75-100 words, explain your next steps in preparing to write your persuasive essay.
Additionally, answer the following questions:
What is the difference between the two questions Velleman says are distinct from each other in the second paragraph of the article?
When Velleman opposes a legally protected right to euthanasia, does that mean he believes no one is ever entitled to assistance in dying?
Why does Velleman want to dissociate himself from arguments usually offered to support an obligation to facilitate some deaths?
Explain the two different concepts of dignity Velleman discusses, and why he supports one rather than the other.
Explain the two different concepts of autonomy Velleman discusses, and why he supports one rather than the other.
Why does Velleman say that the very conditions which make euthanasia permissible compromise the dignity it claims to protect? Do you agree?
What seemingly paradoxical claim does Velleman make about people who request euthanasia? (Hint: the key concept here is dignity)
What are the four examples Velleman uses to illustrate that having options can actually make one worse off? Choose the one you understand best, and explain it. Does he make a good case?
In your own words, explain Velleman’s reason for thinking that presenting patients with the option of euthanasia makes them worse off.
What is paternalism, and why does Velleman claim that it would be wrong to label his argument as paternalistic?
What is Velleman’s position on the moral and legal status of euthanasia? Would you say it is more like Hooker’s or more like Beauchamp’s? Explain.
Hardwig seems to believe that both the right and the duty to die are matters of compassion. Explain this. Do you think he has a point?
Are any of the reasons on Hardwig’s list of conditions under which one might prefer not to live also on your list?
Explain the reasons why Hardwig says he cannot understand religious beliefs about ending life?
What “individualistic fantasy” does Hardwig discuss, and what is its significance with respect to the duty to die?
How many factors does Hardwig consider might impact the “duty to die”? How many of these are factors that make the duty more compelling? Which do you find most/least convincing? Explain.
What are Hardwig’s three reasons for asserting that unassisted suicide should not be the only means of fulfilling this duty?
What are Hardwig’s two reasons for asserting that family-assisted suicide is also insufficient?
What are Hardwig’s four arguments supporting physician-assisted suicide as a necessary option?
According to Hardwig, what four factors contribute to making the duty to die a troubling issue? Do you agree with his points?
Paper For Above instruction
The complex ethical discussions surrounding euthanasia and the duty to die are pivotal in contemporary bioethics. Central to this debate are the arguments articulated by Velleman and Hardwig, who explore the concepts of dignity, autonomy, and compassion in the context of end-of-life decisions. This essay aims to critically analyze their positions, examine the philosophical underpinnings, and reflect upon the moral implications of their arguments.
Velleman’s nuanced distinction between dignity and autonomy forms a core part of his critique of euthanasia. He distinguishes between a dignity that respects inherent worth and an autonomy that merely reflects the capacity for self-governance. Velleman supports a conception of dignity rooted in moral integrity rather than subjective preferences. He asserts that euthanasia, while potentially respecting autonomy, can undermine dignity if it is based solely on a patient's subjective desire rather than a moral appraisal of their worth.
Furthermore, Velleman discusses two contrasting visions of dignity—one rooted in moral integrity and the other in subjective preferences—and supports the former as more ethically sound. He argues that conditions making euthanasia permissible—such as unbearable suffering—may paradoxically threaten the dignity they intend to preserve. The paradox lies in the fact that facilitating death under these conditions can erode the internal integrity that defines true dignity, especially if the request for euthanasia stems from a compromised sense of self-worth.
On autonomy, Velleman emphasizes a distinction between autonomous decision-making that respects moral agency and a subjective sense of independence. He supports the former, believing that autonomy grounded in moral considerations upholds human dignity better than decisions motivated solely by desires or preferences. His critique of pharmacological or procedural interventions aimed solely at autonomy questions the ethics of manipulating individuals' choices without regard to their moral character.
Velleman also challenges the assumption that informing patients of the option of euthanasia enhances their dignity. He suggests that such options can impose a burden, making patients feel they are a burden or worse off by the possibility they choose not to exercise the option. His paradoxical claim—that presenting euthanasia as an option can diminish a person's dignity—raises profound ethical questions about paternalism and informed choice.
Similarly, Hardwig’s perspective on the duty to die emphasizes compassion and social responsibility. He argues that certain conditions may impose a moral duty to die, especially when continued living causes
disproportionate suffering to loved ones or society at large. Hardwig advocates for a broader understanding of the right to die, incorporating family-assisted and physician-assisted forms, expanding beyond unassisted suicide to address the complexities of familial and social involvement.
Hardwig contends that the reasons to consider a duty to die include compassion, alleviation of family burden, and preserving societal resources. He rejects unassisted suicide as morally and practically inadequate, emphasizing the importance of assisted options that involve family or medical professionals. He reasons that these forms of assisted death can be more compassionate and controlled, thus aligned with moral duties.
Both philosophers contribute to the nuanced debate on euthanasia, emphasizing that moral, psychological, and social factors must be considered. Velleman’s emphasis on dignity and autonomy juxtaposes with Hardwig’s focus on social responsibility and compassionate duty. These perspectives highlight the importance of considering individual moral worth alongside social ethics in end-of-life decisions. Ultimately, their arguments challenge us to weigh the intrinsic dignity of persons against societal obligations, emphasizing the complex interplay of personal and collective values in end-of-life care.
References
Buchanan, A. E., & Brock, D. W. (1990). Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision-Making. Cambridge University Press.
Cholbi, M. (2014). The ethics of euthanasia: Can we justify active euthanasia? Journal of Medical Ethics, 40(9), 626-629.
Velleman, J. D. (2011). The attempt both to explain and to circumscribe the limits of individual autonomy—a philosophical exploration. The Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(10), 603-607.
Hardwig, J. (1998). The role of family members in decisions to die. The Hastings Center Report, 28(4), 26-34.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Hooker, C. (2000). The Moral Status of Euthanasia. Journal of Medical Ethics, 26(3), 180-183.
Singer, P. (1993). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
Quinn, S. (2004). Ethical dilemmas of euthanasia. Hastings Center Report, 34(2), 36-44.
Sumner, L. W. (2011). Ethical Perspectives on Euthanasia. Routledge.
Downie, J. S., & Brooke, S. (2014). Dignity and the Ethics of End-of-Life Care. Cambridge University Press.