January 2011
Euthanasia
A01 Examine the role of each of the following in the care of the dying: palliative care, hospices and voluntary euthanasia. (30 marks)
A02 ‘Hospices make euthanasia unnecessary.’ Consider how far you agree with this view. (15 marks)
AQA Guidance:
A01
Candidates need not write an equal amount about each element.
Palliative care:
The removal of pain / reduction of symptoms. At the end of life its purpose is to improve quality of life during the final stage. Does not treat the illness, or try to keep the individual alive for longer. Provides dignity in dying.
Hospices
Palliative care for the terminally ill with a holistic emphasis, concerned with the physical, emotional and spiritual well being of the individual and often support for families as well. A specialist building or centre may be known as a hospice, but the word relates primarily to the quality of care received therein. Provides dignity in dying; limited accessibility.
Voluntary Euthanasia
Exact definitions vary, but focus on the desire of the individual to end his or her life and to seek help to do this. Candidates may describe, for example, the role of the Dignitas clinic. Limited accessibility; said to provide dignity in dying. Reference to living wills could also be included.
Answers which do not deal with all three aspects: max level 5
A02
In support
The implication is that any ‘need’ for euthanasia is removed by the provision of hospice treatment. This is turn implies that hospice life would be of a satisfying quality and would remove the wish to ‘end it all’. This is debateable. Lack of access to hospice care makes alternatives unrealistic.
Contrary to claim
Subjective experience of living, e.g. as a 23 year old paralysed in a rugby accident, can be used to argue that only the individual can judge what is ‘necessary’ in his or her concrete situation.
Examiners Report:
A01
Many candidates had a good understanding of the work of hospices and the care they offer to the dying. Understanding of palliative care was generally less accurate. In some cases, this appeared to be because candidates did not recognise the phrase, although their later discussion showed that they were aware of the concept. Understanding of the possibilities voluntary euthanasia could offer the dying varied considerably, but some were not only aware of what it was but could distinguish between passive euthanasia e.g. carrying out the terms of a living will /advance decision by not giving life-extending treatment, or by withdrawing life support, and active euthanasia, e.g. carrying out a request from a terminally ill individual to end their life through lethal injection. Many candidates knew that the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland makes this a live option. Reference to case studies was limited but sometimes very effective. Not all the chosen cases were relevant, the question concerned the care for the dying, not care of those who were not dying but felt that they faced an unbearable quality of life e.g. because of paralysis.
A02
In general the argument that hospices make euthanasia unnecessary was well-presented. Candidates clearly understood the argument that the need to ‘end it all’ often equates to the need to end physical and mental suffering and that hospices may provide an alternative way of achieving this. A range of arguments against the claim were used – including cost, continuing mental suffering, loss of dignity and the possibility that pain may not be fully controlled. There was limited reference to case studies, but where they were used they were often very effective.
Summer 2011
Euthanasia
A01 Explain religious teachings that support the view that ending the life of another human
being can never be justified. Refer to both abortion and euthanasia in your answer. (30 marks)
A02 ‘Human beings should be able to decide when to die.’ Discuss how far you agree with this statement. (15 marks)
AQA Guidance:
A01
Examples of arguments include: Sanctity of life: In the theistic religions, life is held in trust for God, belongs to God and should be treated like a gift, with care and gratitude; Moral commandments: (e.g.) ahimsa in Buddhism and Hinduism; do not murder from Decalogue; Scriptural teaching: various passages may be referred to – with clear application to abortion or euthanasia where this is not explicit; Arguments from scholars / rabbis / imams / Church teaching: e.g. from R.C. Catechism.
Answers which do not refer to both Abortion and Euthanasia: maximum Level 5.
A02
Teaching on self-sacrifice implies this – and individuals may see death as a way of serving God or achieving the divine purpose of their lives; Utilitarian arguments; quality of life arguments; arguments based on ‘rights’, and those which look at the alternative to being allowed to choose when to die, e.g. those depending on feeding tubes may ask for them to be removed, knowing that this will result in their death. If the principle that they should be allowed to die has been accepted, it is arguably inhumane to require it to be by a slow and probably painful process. It may be argued that a human being never, always, or only in specific circumstances has that right.
Examiners Report:
A01
There were many well-focused answers which showed good knowledge and understanding of much relevant religious teaching. Many candidates were able to support their answers with reference to scripture or other sources. Some summarised views about abortion and euthanasia found in different religions, and such answers were only partly relevant. Some candidates failed to mention euthanasia, so limiting the marks that could be awarded and some offered non-religious arguments although these were not asked for and could not be credited.
A02
The best answers recognised that a debate about self-sacrifice was relevant here as much as a debate about autonomy, and good use was made of ‘hard’ cases where, for example, a mother declined treatment for cancer, knowing that a delay would be fatal, in order to protect the life of her unborn child. Arguments in support of living wills / advance directives were also considered alongside those supporting assisted suicide. Most candidates referred to religious arguments against euthanasia/suicide but answers which made no reference to religion were also acceptable.