Critique My Argument (Euthanasia)

[thecone137]

I had it out with a friend on facebook about Euthanasia, and he accused me of many logical fallacies. I want and honest assessment of the validity of his accusations. Keep in mind that I’m trying to use largly secular arguments, because I was restricted to such terms early on. Thanks in advance!

Me: Euthanasia has a new euphemism… “Comfort Care”

Friend: Or, hospice, as it’s been known for decades

Me: Do you acknowledge a distinction between causing and allowing? If yes, then there is a difference from hospice

Friend: Red herring. They cannot be cured. The only options are slow and painful death, or quicker, more comfortable death. The Hippocratic Oath states,“First, do no harm.”
Doing nothing for an incurable affliction does harm to the patient.
Also, speaking legally, there isn’t much difference between causing and allowing; particularly when the outcome is known/obvious. There ARE crimes of omission.
So this discredits the very fine line you’re attempting to draw here.

Me: Legal Liability is not metaphysical causation, but let’s run with legal.
Thank you for answering my question and admitting that distinctions between causing and allowing exist (progress!)Your new claim is that, while distinctions do exist for certain situations, distinctions do not exist (or are very small) in respects to “legal” situations in which the outcomes are “known/obvious”. . . . the law draws a crucial distinction between cases in which a doctor decides not to provide, or to continue to provide, for his patient treatment or care which could or might prolong his life, and those in which he decides, for example by administering a lethal drug, actively to bring his patient’s life to an end . . . the former may be lawful, either because the doctor is giving effect to his patient’s wishes . . . or even in certain circumstances in which . . . the patient is incapacitated from stating whether or not he gives his consent. But it is not lawful for a doctor to administer a drug to his patient to bring about his death, even though that course is prompted by a humanitarian desire to end his suffering, however great that suffering may be…
Active Euthanasia = causing = illegal (large controversy)
Passive Euthanasia = allowing = legal (small controversy)

Friend: Again with your semantics…Patients’ rights are also part of medical ethics. A part you’re choosing to ignore in favor of your semantics. You have yet to make a claim relevant to patients’ rights.

Me: Moral permissibality (ethics) is a different question from legal validity (rights). Let’s stick to legal validity – the terms you set. Surely, we agree that rights are not unlimited. Even Oregon has additional conditions (eg full autonomy). Because it seems that I’ve been restricted to secular arguments, I will simply say that individual rights can be limited for some greater good of the entire society. If you truly believe that the means are irrelevant when the result is the same, what difference is there between this and suicide or homicide?

Friend: Don’t be willfully ignorant of the fact that the two are not mutually exclusive. Doctors’ practices are bound both by law and ethics. Nice try to continue to employ your favorite straw man fallacy yet again. The ‘greater good’ argument is not applicable here. What ‘greater good’ is served by prolonging the suffering of a terminally ill patient?
You DO realize that the idea behind ethics is that the doctors’ decisions are justified based on the specific set of circumstances with each patient?

I see you’ve chosen to also be willfully ignorant of the difference between suicide and homicide.
A homicide victim does not want to die.
A suicidal person does.
A terminally ill patient has seen the end of his productive life and is choosing to die with his/her dignity.
“Than why not just kill yourself at home?,” you’ll probably ask.

1. They’re likely very weak and/or bedridden.
2. They more than likely don’t have access to the medicines to get the job done.
3. Suicide voids many, if not all, life insurance policies.
4. They’d like an open-casket funeral for their family, which wouldn’t be possible with a gunshot wound to the head.

Your next question is, “Whats the difference between killing yourself and having a doctor do it?”

The difference is that a doctor is a highly-trained professional officially telling you that you are beyond treatment and that death is right around the corner.
Doctor’s opinions do hold up in court and are sufficient evidence for insurance claims.
Glad I could clear that up for you. You’re welcome.

 

[thecone137]

Me: Since one can hold to a theory of law without presupposing morality, the spheres are, therefore, logically independent. Alternatively, one can hold to partial overlap (some laws are moral some not) or full blown overlap, which is usually referred to classical natural law. This is just the reality of legal theory…I’m not trying to be difficult or duck any issues here. I’m just trying to keep our conversation focused. You seem very confident that it is not possible for the spheres to be mutually exclusive. If I can show you a link, would that suffice? Correct me if I am wrong - it sounds like you are saying that because I don’t have an explanation for the greater goods, then I don’t have an explanation for the violation of patients rights. Did I represent you accurately?

Friend: Again with your red herrings…First, medical ethics courses and the Medical Review Board exist because lawyers realize that they’re not doctors. So law is not always clear when dealing with medical issues. There is no violation of patients’ rights. You’re suggesting that patient rights be ignored. Cut your bullsh*t and answer a question directly, for a change. When you can’t explain what the greater good would be, it undermines your entire argument.

Me: So I guess that means you will not acknowledge that the legal and moral spheres can be mutually exclusive…If I share a link with you, would you be open minded to reading it? As for not answering your question directly and for sake of our integrities- scroll up to the top (messages may be hidden) and look to your first post where you mention “patient rights”. You say “patients rights are also part of medical ethics”. Then look to the very next post. I immediately responded or at least attempted to respond (not “continued to avoid” or “bullsh*tted”) with a well-known secular argument, specifically, some greater good. This is a “law and economics” approach to legal theory (cost/benefit). I’m not making this theory up or trying to bs. Do a Google search if on “law and economics” if you don’t believe me. I did so because I’m not allowed to (at least it seems) to use classical natural law legal theory (remember you accused me early on of christian presuppositions and classical natural law legal theory is grounded in Divine Law) for human rights. Let me state something plainly: rights can violated because of explanation 1. Explanation 1 can be explained because of explanation 2, explanation 2 can be explained by explanation 3…ad infinitum, so no matter what happens, you can always keep asking why, why, why and when I stop say “because you didn’t explain every single explanation, then that undermines everything” The chain needs to stop somewhere. With that said If I properly define what I mean by the greater good and provide one support for the greater good, will that suffice?

Friend: Explaining the greater good would satisfy my request for you to dictate a clear argument. Obviously, legal/moral spheres can be separate. That’s another straw man of yours because that’s clearly not the issue here. The reason the issue is debated at all is because the two obviously overlap. If you’re going to continue to be willfully ignorant of the obvious, I’m not going to engage in your circular, fallacious “debate.”

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Me: Euthanasia has a new euphemism… “Comfort Care”

Have you read the Ethcal Religious Directives?

Part Five

The use of life-sustaining technology is judged in light of the Christian meaning of life, suffering, and death. In this way two extremes are avoided: on the one hand, an insistence on useless or burdensome technology even when a patient may legitimately wish to forgo it and, on the other hand, the withdrawal of technology with the intention of causing death.

1. A person has a moral obligation to use ordinary or proportionate means of preserving his or her life. Proportionate means are those that in the judgment of the patient offer a reasonable hope of benefit and do not entail an excessive burden or impose excessive expense on the family or the community.
2. A person may forgo extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life. Disproportionate means are those that in the patient’s judgment do not offer a reasonable hope of benefit or entail an excessive burden, or impose excessive expense on the family or the community.
3. Euthanasia is an action or omission that of itself or by intention causes death in order to alleviate suffering. Catholic health care institutions may never condone or participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide in any way. Dying patients who request euthanasia should receive loving care, psychological and spiritual support, and appropriate remedies for pain and other symptoms so that they can live with dignity until the time of natural death.42
4. Patients should be kept as free of pain as possible so that they may die comfortably and with dignity, and in the place where they wish to die. Since a person has the right to prepare for his or her death while fully conscious, he or she should not be deprived of consciousness without a compelling reason. Medicines capable of alleviating or suppressing pain may be given to a dying person, even if this therapy may indirectly shorten the person’s life so long as the intent is not to hasten death. Patients experiencing suffering that cannot be alleviated should be helped to appreciate the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering.
   usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Me: Do you acknowledge a distinction between causing and allowing?

This an important issue. Obviously there is SOME difference, but the question is whether the difference is significant or not? For example six equals two times three, or three times two. The difference here is not significant. On the other hand, you can accumulate a million bucks by winning the lottery, or selling a great new patent, or robbing a bank. There is a significant difference between these methods.

The point is not if there is a difference between active and passive euthanasia, rather if there is reason to allow passive one, but disallow the active one. As usual there is no clear-cut, absolute answer, the circumstances need to examined.

If the patient is lucid, and expresses a wish to be euthanized, then active euthanasia is the way to go.

If the patient is lucid and expresses a wish NOT to be euthanized, then active euthanasia is out of question.

If the patient is not lucid (maybe in a coma, or persistent vegetative state) BUT there is a prior document expressing her wishes, then the wish must be followed.

And so on… there can be many more different scenarios. The problem with the catholic approach is that there are no provisions for the different situations - active euthanasia is always “evil”. Of course to say that one is permitted to give potentially lethal amount of painkillers, as long as the death is foreseen, but not intended is just hypocrisy.

Then there is the question of limited resources. As long as one needs to choose where to allocate limited resources, the only rational solution is the utilitarian approach, use them where they result in more good.

---

A more generic possible scenario: You see a child playing next to a deep crevasse. You can foresee that he will eventually fall in and die. If you do not prevent it by taking the child into a safe place, then you would be considered exactly as responsible for his death as if you deliberately pushed him down. The point is that foreknowledge and ability to prevent something undesirable puts the negligent person on par with a deliberate murderer.

The only excuse is if one cannot foresee and / or unable to prevent something. Which is inapplicable to God (allegedly).

Patients experiencing suffering that cannot be alleviated should be helped to appreciate the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering

This is especially pertinent to the suffering of toddlers… or maybe NOT!

 

[MPat]

The problem with the catholic approach is that there are no provisions for the different situations - active euthanasia is always “evil”.

Shouldn’t you at least try to show that it is not always evil, before claiming that is a problem?

Of course to say that one is permitted to give potentially lethal amount of painkillers, as long as the death is foreseen, but not intended is just hypocrisy.

Of course, to say that with no argument is just begging the question…

Friend:

“Than why not just kill yourself at home?,” you’ll probably ask.

1. Suicide voids many, if not all, life insurance policies.
2. They’d like an open-casket funeral for their family, which wouldn’t be possible with a gunshot wound to the head.

I’d say it would be worth pointing out just how bad those reasons are. Suicide is not made any better by adding insurance fraud to it. And can he give a reason (consistent with his views) why discomfort of others caused by seeing someone’s gunshot wound is to be taken into account?

Me: Euthanasia has a new euphemism… “Comfort Care”

Friend: Or, hospice, as it’s been known for decades

Me: Do you acknowledge a distinction between causing and allowing? If yes, then there is a difference from hospice

I guess you would have gained more by pointing out that hospice kills the pain and euthanasia kills the patient… He’s probably a consequentionalist and will not give any importance to intentions, only to results…

Friend: Red herring. They cannot be cured. The only options are slow and painful death, or quicker, more comfortable death. The Hippocratic Oath states,“First, do no harm.”

Here you could have pointed out that the same Hippocratic Oath prohibits euthanasia (as given in Wikipedia: “Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so.”). Also, can he prove that killing the patient is not “harm”?

I had it out with a friend on facebook about Euthanasia, and he accused me of many logical fallacies. I want and honest assessment of the validity of his accusations. Keep in mind that I’m trying to use largly secular arguments, because I was restricted to such terms early on. Thanks in advance!

Well, I guess he is right in pointing out that he demanded you to give the “greater good” argument in more detail and you didn’t do it…

You could have said that life itself is valuable, even with pain. If (OK, when ) he will disagree, you can ask him if he thinks there are any reasons to avoid suicide. That should show some inconsistency in his position…

 

[thecone137]

This an important issue. Obviously there is SOME difference, but the question is whether the difference is significant or not? For example six equals two times three, or three times two. The difference here is not significant. On the other hand, you can accumulate a million bucks by winning the lottery, or selling a great new patent, or robbing a bank. There is a significant difference between these methods.

The point is not if there is a difference between active and passive euthanasia, rather if there is reason to allow passive one, but disallow the active one. As usual there is no clear-cut, absolute answer, the circumstances need to examined.

If the patient is lucid, and expresses a wish to be euthanized, then active euthanasia is the way to go.

If the patient is lucid and expresses a wish NOT to be euthanized, then active euthanasia is out of question.

If the patient is not lucid (maybe in a coma, or persistent vegetative state) BUT there is a prior document expressing her wishes, then the wish must be followed.

And so on… there can be many more different scenarios. The problem with the catholic approach is that there are no provisions for the different situations - active euthanasia is always “evil”. Of course to say that one is permitted to give potentially lethal amount of painkillers, as long as the death is foreseen, but not intended is just hypocrisy.

Then there is the question of limited resources. As long as one needs to choose where to allocate limited resources, the only rational solution is the utilitarian approach, use them where they result in more good.

---

A more generic possible scenario: You see a child playing next to a deep crevasse. You can foresee that he will eventually fall in and die. If you do not prevent it by taking the child into a safe place, then you would be considered exactly as responsible for his death as if you deliberately pushed him down. The point is that foreknowledge and ability to prevent something undesirable puts the negligent person on par with a deliberate murderer.

The only excuse is if one cannot foresee and / or unable to prevent something. Which is inapplicable to God (allegedly).

This is especially pertinent to the suffering of toddlers… or maybe NOT!

Thank you. What about the “red herrings” accusations? Was I really providing irrelevant arguments and was I willfully avoiding anything?

 

[thecone137]

Shouldn’t you at least try to show that it is not always evil, before claiming that is a problem?

Of course, to say that with no argument is just begging the question…

I’d say it would be worth pointing out just how bad those reasons are. Suicide is not made any better by adding insurance fraud to it. And can he give a reason (consistent with his views) why discomfort of others caused by seeing someone’s gunshot wound is to be taken into account?

I guess you would have gained more by pointing out that hospice kills the pain and euthanasia kills the patient… He’s probably a consequentionalist and will not give any importance to intentions, only to results…

Here you could have pointed out that the same Hippocratic Oath prohibits euthanasia (as given in Wikipedia: “Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so.”). Also, can he prove that killing the patient is not “harm”?

Well, I guess he is right in pointing out that he demanded you to give the “greater good” argument in more detail and you didn’t do it…

You could have said that life itself is valuable, even with pain. If (OK, when ) he will disagree, you can ask him if he thinks there are any reasons to avoid suicide. That should show some inconsistency in his position…

Thank you… How about the ‘circular arguments’ accusation. Were any of my arguments circular in nature?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

This is especially pertinent to the suffering of toddlers… or maybe NOT!

You would rather euthanize them?

Sometimes toddlers are wiser than adults.

 

[MPat]

Thank you. What about the “red herrings” accusations? Was I really providing irrelevant arguments and was I willfully avoiding anything?

Let’s see. “Red herring” was mentioned twice. First case:

Me: Do you acknowledge a distinction between causing and allowing? If yes, then there is a difference from hospice

Friend: Red herring. They cannot be cured. The only options are slow and painful death, or quicker, more comfortable death. The Hippocratic Oath states,“First, do no harm.”
Doing nothing for an incurable affliction does harm to the patient.
Also, speaking legally, there isn’t much difference between causing and allowing; particularly when the outcome is known/obvious. There ARE crimes of omission.
So this discredits the very fine line you’re attempting to draw here.

You have asked him if he sees a difference between causing something and allowing something, he has answered that he does not (or that he doesn’t care). No red herring here (or “Red herring is the only red herring here.” ).

Second case:

Friend: Don’t be willfully ignorant of the fact that the two are not mutually exclusive. Doctors’ practices are bound both by law and ethics.

Me: Since one can hold to a theory of law without presupposing morality, the spheres are, therefore, logically independent. Alternatively, one can hold to partial overlap (some laws are moral some not) or full blown overlap, which is usually referred to classical natural law. This is just the reality of legal theory…I’m not trying to be difficult or duck any issues here. I’m just trying to keep our conversation focused. You seem very confident that it is not possible for the spheres to be mutually exclusive. If I can show you a link, would that suffice? Correct me if I am wrong - it sounds like you are saying that because I don’t have an explanation for the greater goods, then I don’t have an explanation for the violation of patients rights. Did I represent you accurately?

Friend: Again with your red herrings…First, medical ethics courses and the Medical Review Board exist because lawyers realize that they’re not doctors. So law is not always clear when dealing with medical issues. There is no violation of patients’ rights.

Again, he has made a claim, you have disagreed. It might not have been his main point, but there is no red herring here.

Next, “willfully avoiding”. Frankly, it is not an accusation friends are expected to make…

But let’s look anyway. First case:

Me: Moral permissibality (ethics) is a different question from legal validity (rights). Let’s stick to legal validity – the terms you set. Surely, we agree that rights are not unlimited. Even Oregon has additional conditions (eg full autonomy). Because it seems that I’ve been restricted to secular arguments, I will simply say that individual rights can be limited for some greater good of the entire society.

Friend: Don’t be willfully ignorant of the fact that the two are not mutually exclusive. Doctors’ practices are bound both by law and ethics. Nice try to continue to employ your favorite straw man fallacy yet again.

You did not claim anything like “mutually exclusive” - it is he who is committing the strawman fallacy. Nothing close to “willful ignorance”.

Second case:

Me:

If you truly believe that the means are irrelevant when the result is the same, what difference is there between this and suicide or homicide?

Friend:

I see you’ve chosen to also be willfully ignorant of the difference between suicide and homicide.
A homicide victim does not want to die.
A suicidal person does.
A terminally ill patient has seen the end of his productive life and is choosing to die with his/her dignity.

You have asked him how he can see a difference, given that death happens in all three cases. He has missed the point, saying that the difference is in intentions. Yet his position was that only results matter, while intentions do not (he had a chance to deny that, but didn’t use it, thus you are free to assume that it is his position). No “willful ignorance” here.

Thank you… How about the ‘circular arguments’ accusation. Were any of my arguments circular in nature?

He might have meant that there will be no progress in the discussion…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Shouldn’t you at least try to show that it is not always evil, before claiming that is a problem?

Since our definition of “evil” is different, there is no point in going into details. In my world respecting the wishes of someone who declines to extended her life and helping out to finish it in a dignified fashion is NOT evil. In a more general fashion, nothing that happens in a mutually agreed upon manner and which does not hurt a third party is “evil”.

You would rather euthanize them?

Who says that these are the only two options? My point was that there are sufferings, which cannot be offered up to God, so there is no justification for allowing them - if one is able to alleviate the suffering.

 

[Rhubarb]

Yeah, I didn’t see any red herrings. I don’t think your friend knows what that means. It sounds like s/he was just disagreeing with you. I’ll look at it again when it’s not midnight and I’m not in the grips of a final exam but I don’t see any blatant fallacies.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Since our definition of “evil” is different, there is no point in going into details. In my world respecting the wishes of someone who declines to extended her life and helping out to finish it in a dignified fashion is NOT evil. In a more general fashion, nothing that happens in a mutually agreed upon manner and which does not hurt a third party is “evil”.

Who says that these are the only two options? My point was that there are sufferings, which cannot be offered up to God, so there is no justification for allowing them - if one is able to alleviate the suffering.

No one including the bishops say other wise. Your point is pointless.