Taking Applied Ethics, this video really covered Rachel's argument in great detail! Great job!
@bioethicsondemand6258
4 жыл бұрын
Thank you!! Rachels' clarity in writing and vivid examples make this a fun one to teach (for me, at least).
@MrKelso85
4 ай бұрын
Great video thank you just doing a masters piece on the subject
@dianam9250
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for this video it helped me a lot, I was so confusing on the active and positive euthanasia and I have to write my easy about the difference between killing and letting someone to die.
@kristilynnsaavedra7720
4 жыл бұрын
Thank you very much for this very informative discussion
@bioethicsondemand6258
4 жыл бұрын
I'm glad it was informative -- Thanks for watching!
@clintonwilcox4690
4 жыл бұрын
Involuntary vs. non-voluntary euthanasia just sounds like a distinction without a difference, to me. Since life is inherently good, a person whose desire is unknown should be treated as if they had expressed a desire not to be euthanized. Making this distinction sounds like an attempt to rationalize killing some people that weren't able to express their desire to continue living. We don't make this distinction when it comes to other things. In all other situations, if we act against someone's will, even if they never expressed a desire not to be acted upon, we don't call it non-voluntary, we call it involuntary -- which essentially means the same thing, because the prefix in- just means "non". "Indistinct" means "not distinct"; inexpressible means "not expressible", etc.
@bioethicsondemand6258
4 жыл бұрын
This may relate a bit to the Cruzan case -- In situations where someone is on life-support, unresponsive (or incompetent), and we don't have an advanced directive (or conclusive evidence for what a person would want), how do we proceed? Prudence may suggest we treat all such cases as a full code -- do whatever we can to keep them alive or prolong their life. On one hand, this saves all the people who would want to be saved, but, on the other, it saves the lives of those who wouldn't want to be saved. This seems better than the alternative (where people who would have wanted to be saved are allowed to die). As I understand it, in the Cruzan case, the courts ruled that when third parties have to make these decisions (in the nonvoluntary cases) it's up to states to set the bar for what counts as adequate evidence that an individual wouldn't want treatment. So that's going to vary by state. I suppose one way that we might justify the involuntary/nonvoluntary distinction: It's possible that some individuals in the latter category would be opposed to receiving treatment (in which case, they'd be receiving treatment against their will, though they are not able to express it). But that doesn't happen in the involuntary cases (where people are killed or not treated and these actions/omissions are clearly contrary to their will). Regarding the other situations -- you noted that "if we act against someone's will...we don't call it non-voluntary" -- and that seems right -- but in the nonvoluntary cases of euthanasia, we might *not* be acting contrary to the patient's will. If voluntary means "consistent with the patient's wishes" and involuntary means "inconsistent with the patient's wishes" then it may be that when it comes to the nonvoluntary cases, some will involve voluntary euthanasia, some will involve involuntary euthanasia, and we may never know for sure which is occurring (in some such cases). So where we draw the line on establishing what counts as sufficient evidence (i.e., sufficient evidence to withdraw or withhold treatment) is a very serious matter.
@carlapaperdoll
6 ай бұрын
Amazing explanation bro!
@egbuwalofemi9836
3 жыл бұрын
Good Job
@dubbelkastrull
2 жыл бұрын
8:28 bookmark
@KywPT
2 жыл бұрын
On your sufferor and suffering argument, can't you make the same argument for passive euthanasia? That passive euthanasia shouldn't be considered a positive since the sufferor will dispaear in the process too?
Пікірлер: 12