Phil 104 – Anderson First Writing Assignment
Fall 04
1. Glover, The Sanctity of Life
Singer, Is the Sanctity of Life Terminally Ill?
The principle of the sanctity of human life has been fundamental to the moral outlook of western culture for centuries. What sort of conduct is it meant to prohibit or require? Both Glover and Singer reject the principle for similar reasons. Why do they reject it and what do they propose to put in its place? Suppose their alternative take on the value of human life becomes the dominant view of society as a whole. (My own guess is that this is already happening.) Should we be alarmed at that prospect?
2. Dworkin, Life Past Reason
Dresser, Dworkin on Dementia
Victims of dementia create special problems for the medical community because they have lost the capacity to make rational decisions about their own care and treatment. How, Dworkin asks, should such a person be treated if it is known that before becoming incompetent they clearly expressed the wish that, should they fall victim to severe dementia, they not be kept on life support. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that once the dementia sets in, they can no longer remember having held such a preference.
Why does Dworkin think the approach that shows true respect for the person is to honor their earlier preference that they held when they were competent? Dresser expresses some serious doubts about the wisdom of that approach. Who makes the stronger case here?
3. Rachels, Active and Passive Euthanasia
Callahan, When Self-Determination Runs Amok
Rachels argues that in certain circumstances there is no morally significant difference between active and passive euthanasia. In effect, killing a patient can sometimes be as morally justifiable (if not even more so) than withholding treatment and allowing them to die. What is his argument for this? Callahan adamantly insists that there is always a real moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. Does he succeed in showing Rachels is mistaken?
4. Film, Dax’s Case
At the end of the film Dax’s Case, Donald Cowart (Dax) remarks that he is glad to be alive but still thinks his earlier plea not to have his burn treatments continued should have been honored. Is Dax being inconsistent here? In other words, does the fact that he was glad to be alive prove that the medical team acted correctly after all in denying his earlier plea to have the treatments stopped? Is it reasonable to conclude (as some people did) that, at the time he was undergoing his burn treatments, Dax was actually incompetent to make decisions about his own medial care due to the extraordinary pain he was suffering as well as severe depression?