Religious Studies Anthology

Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in Religious Studies – Anthology

54

In prac tic e, though, the law has to take into ac c ount a general moral feeling and it
has also t o ac knowledge t hat onc e legislat ion t ake plac e, in t he mind of many t his
is seen t o give t ac it approval t o c ert ain forms of behaviour. Bernard Williams has
described this as the precedent effect (Smart and Williams, Ut ilit arianism, 1973,
p.106). Others more fearfully think in terms of a slippery slope or the thin end of
the wedge. If, for instanc e, voluntary euthanasia were to be permitted under the
law t his would inevit ably permit ot her forms of illic it killing. T he Brit ish Medic al
Assoc iation is adamant that euthanasia should not bec ome law:

Doctors have a duty to try to provide patients with a peaceful and

dignified death with minima l suffering, but the BMA c onsiders it c ontrary

to the doctor’s role deliberately to kill patients, even at their request. In

t he BMA’s view, liberalising t he law on eut hanasia would herald a serious

and inc alc ulable c hange in the ethos of medic ine.

Medic al Et hic s T oday (1993), pp.175, 177

b) The case for legalising euthanasia

The two princ iples frequently c ited are personal autonomy (and rights) and QOL.
The argument is further enhanc ed by c iting those c ountries/states where some
form of eut hanasia is permit t ed.

i) Brit ain

Euthanasia is only an extension of what is permissible as suic ide. The 1961 Suic ide
Ac t in the UK for instanc e permits personal autonomy to c hoose without
rec riminat ion (in t he c ase of at t empt ed suic ide) but forbids t hird-party involvement.
Here is an argument typic al of this kind of reasoning (Janet Radc liffe, The Guardian
Weekly, September 1992):

The problem with voluntary euthanasia has nothing to do with the

dangers of letting doctors decide whether patients live or die... The real

quest ion is quit e different. It is whether people who are trapped in bodies

or an institution they c annot c ontrol should be allowed to make c hoic es

freely available to the rest of us...Why... If you take a housebound friend

shopping no one ac c uses you of kidnapping, if you c ook her a meal no one

thinks you are forc e-feeding her. Why then, if she is in agony or despair,

and you bring her the lethal dose she desperately wants but c annot get,

or you manipulate the syringe because she is too weak to do it herself, do

you find yourself guilty of one of the worst crimes there is?

But the 1961 Suic ide Ac t makes it illegal t o aid or give assist anc e in a suic ide.
Those who argue for a c hange in the law c ite the shift in popular support and
demand for voluntary euthanasia from 51 per c ent in 1969, 69 per c ent in 1976,
75 per c ent in 1989 to 82 per c ent in 1996. T he Brit ish Medic al Assoc iat ion t hough
st ill st rongly opposes any c hange on t he grounds t hat it will irrevoc ably alt er t he
pat ient-doc t or relat ionship.

ii) T he Net herlands

Often people argue that voluntary euthanasia arrangements should be brought in
line wit h t he princ iples det ermining legal abort ion. The situation in the Netherlands