Exam 4: Suicide, Euthanasia, and Death

Correct Answer:

Answered by Examlex AI Copilot

Hardwig's argument that in some cases we have a duty to die may strike some people as repugnant because it goes against the instinctual human desire to preserve life at all costs. It challenges the deeply ingrained belief that we should do everything in our power to prolong our lives and the lives of others. The idea of actively choosing to die goes against our natural survival instincts and can be seen as morally objectionable.

However, the fact that this suggestion elicits repugnance is not sufficient to warrant the rejection of his thesis. Just because an idea is repugnant or goes against our initial instincts does not necessarily mean it is invalid. Hardwig's argument may provoke discomfort and challenge our deeply held beliefs, but that does not automatically make it untrue or unworthy of consideration. It is important to engage with difficult and uncomfortable ideas in order to fully understand and evaluate them.

Ultimately, whether or not we have a duty to die in certain circumstances is a complex ethical question that requires careful consideration and debate. While it may be initially repugnant to some, it is important to critically examine Hardwig's argument and consider the broader implications of his thesis before dismissing it outright.

Correct Answer:

Answered by Examlex AI Copilot

Brock's identification of the potential good and bad consequences of permitting euthanasia is a comprehensive and balanced analysis of the issue.

The four good consequences he identifies include the relief of suffering for terminally ill patients, the promotion of patient autonomy and self-determination, the reduction of medical costs for end-of-life care, and the potential for improving the overall quality of end-of-life care.

On the other hand, the five potential bad consequences he identifies include the risk of abuse and coercion, the erosion of trust in the medical profession, the potential for devaluing human life, the slippery slope towards involuntary euthanasia, and the potential for negative impacts on palliative care and end-of-life decision-making.

Upon reflection, it's clear that permitting euthanasia comes with a complex set of potential consequences, both positive and negative. Ultimately, whether one agrees or disagrees with Brock's conclusion depends on one's own ethical, moral, and philosophical beliefs. Some may argue that the relief of suffering and the promotion of patient autonomy outweigh the potential negative consequences, while others may argue that the risks of abuse and devaluing human life are too great to justify permitting euthanasia.

In conclusion, Brock's analysis provides a valuable framework for understanding the potential consequences of permitting euthanasia. It's up to each individual to weigh these consequences and come to their own conclusion on whether they agree or disagree with permitting euthanasia.