Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in Religious Studies – Anthology
51
b) Three moral principles
T hree princ iples presuppose that the doctor is working from the traditional SOL
posit ion enshrined in t he part of t he Hippoc rat ic Oat h whic h st at es ‘I will give no
deadly medic ines to anyone if asked, nor suggest any suc h c ounsel’ (BMA
Handbook, p.69). Eac h of these principles depends on making a distinction between
direc t and indirec t killing, i.e. active euthanasia or passive euthanasia. In the
latter case there is some dispute whether the term ‘euthanasia’ is really
appropriate.
i) Ac t s and omissions
If A chooses to shoot B then we c lassify this as an intended ac t; if C sees A and
fails to stop A shooting B then this is an intended omission. The point is whether C
is at all blamewort hy. In t his inc ident , if C is a pac ifist t hey might well just ify t heir
action by appealing t o a negat ive responsibilit y, i.e. by failing t o ac t t hey were
morally blameless. They might even argue that refraining from ac ting took a great
deal of moral courage. But however one looks at it, C was prepared to condone the
death of B and accept whatever the c onsequenc es this might entail. Some object to
t his. Can I be held responsible for failing to help stop the deaths of thousands dying
in povert y in t he T hird World? Perhaps the notion has to be c ouc hed in suc h terms
as ‘I am only responsible when I am reasonably in a position to do something’. In
other words some ‘omissions’ are regarded as ‘acts’. The Roman Catholic Churc h
states:
Thus an ac t or omission whic h, of itself or by intention, c auses death
in order t o eliminat e suffering c onst it ut es a murder gravely c ont rary t o
the dignity of the human person and to the respec t due to the living God,
his Creat or. The error of judgement into whic h one c an fall in good faith
does not c hange the nature of this murderous ac t, whic h must always be
forbidden and excluded.Catec hism of the Catholic Churc h (1994), p.491.T he problem is part ic ularly ac ut e wit h premat ure babies. If a baby is born very
prematurely a doc tor might have to c onsider whether they have a duty to save the
baby. Some argue that morally they may wit hhold treatment either as a form of
passive euthanasia (a form of non-voluntary euthanasia) or simply ‘let t ing
nature take its c ourse’. Morally if they engage in treatment and then decide to
wit hdraw treatment on the grounds that the baby will no longer have a worthwhile
life, it may no longer be c onsidered indirec t killing but an ac t of ac t ive non-
voluntary euthanasia or murder (See Singer, Rethinking Life and Death, 1994,
pp.75-80 for examples and discussion.)