AO1: Religious & secular views on the value of life (sanctity vs quality)
- Religious views typically support the sanctity of life, the belief that life has intrinsic value because it is created by God.
- The Bible supports this, for example Paul teaches that the body is a temple and humans “are not your own”, implying life belongs to God.
- This means life should not be destroyed or treated merely as a means.
- Natural Law, developed by Aquinas, strengthens this by grounding sanctity in reason.
- The primary precept to preserve life and the concept of telos suggest all human life, including embryos, has a natural purpose and must be protected from conception.
- However, Situation Ethics, proposed by Fletcher, offers a more flexible Christian approach.
- Fletcher argues that agape (selfless love) is the only absolute, so the value of life depends on what is most loving in each situation.
- He does not fully reject sanctity of life, but reinterprets it, denying that life is always inviolable and allowing it to be overridden where love requires.
- Secular views reject divine authority and instead base morality on reason and human experience.
- Utilitarianism, developed by Bentham and Mill, supports a quality of life view.
- This judges life’s value by factors such as consciousness, the ability to feel pleasure or pain, and overall wellbeing, rather than simply being biologically human.
AO1: Application to the status of the embryo
- Embryo research involves experimenting on embryos, usually leading to their destruction.
- Natural Law rejects this because embryos are human life from conception, with a telos to develop, so destroying them violates the precept to preserve life.
- Situation Ethics may allow embryo research if it produces the most agape, such as curing disease.
- Utilitarianism would allow it where significant medical benefits outweigh harm, but oppose it if benefits are minimal or alternatives exist.
- Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) involves testing embryos for genetic conditions, often leading to selective abortion.
- Natural Law opposes PGD as it treats embryos instrumentally and may lead to killing innocent life.
- Situation Ethics may permit PGD to prevent serious suffering.
- Utilitarianism would allow PGD if it reduces future suffering, but reject it where it encourages discrimination (e.g. gender selection).
- Stem cells can become any cell type, while cord blood provides similar cells after birth.
- Natural Law rejects embryonic stem cell use but accepts cord blood, as no life is destroyed.
- Situation Ethics supports both if they maximise love.
- Utilitarianism allows both where benefits are high, but may reject embryonic use if non-destructive alternatives are equally effective.
- IVF enables conception but often results in unused embryos being destroyed.
- Natural Law opposes IVF for separating reproduction from its natural purpose and risking life.
- Situation Ethics may support IVF to help couples conceive.
- Utilitarianism allows IVF where it increases happiness, but may criticise excessive embryo loss.
- Abortion involves terminating a pregnancy.
- Natural Law rejects it as the taking of innocent life.
- Situation Ethics may allow it where it is the most loving outcome.
- Utilitarianism permits abortion, especially early on, but may oppose it if it causes greater overall harm.
AO1: Application to assisted dying
- Assisted dying involves helping a person to end their life, while euthanasia involves directly causing death, and palliative care focuses on relieving pain, even if this may hasten death.
- Natural Law rejects assisted dying and euthanasia as they intentionally end innocent life, violating the precept to preserve life and the natural telos of human beings.
- However, it may allow palliative care through the doctrine of double effect, where the intention is to relieve pain rather than cause death.
- Situation Ethics may permit assisted dying or euthanasia if it is the most loving response to suffering, while supporting palliative care as agape.
- Utilitarianism would allow assisted dying where it reduces suffering and increases wellbeing, but oppose it if it risks abuse or wider social harm.
- The legal position varies, but in the UK assisted dying and euthanasia are illegal, reflecting concerns about protecting life and preventing misuse.
- Natural Law supports this restriction, while Situation Ethics may criticise rigid laws that prevent compassionate choices.
- Utilitarianism may support legalisation with safeguards if it maximises wellbeing, but reject it if risks outweigh benefits, such as pressure on vulnerable people.
- Debates about rights and responsibilities focus on whether individuals have a right to die or a duty to preserve life.
- Natural Law denies a right to die and emphasises duties to God and society, while Situation Ethics may support it in loving circumstances.
- Utilitarianism supports rights where they promote wellbeing but limits them if they risk harm to others.
- Personhood and human nature are also key.
- Natural Law sees all human life as equally valuable, while Situation Ethics and utilitarianism place more weight on quality of life, including awareness and capacity to suffer.
- Options and choices emphasise autonomy and control over death.
- Natural Law limits individual choice to protect life, whereas Situation Ethics allows flexible decisions based on agape.
- Utilitarianism values choice where it increases happiness, but may restrict it where it could create harmful social consequences or reduce trust in medical care.
AO2: Whether Situation Ethics gives the right level of autonomy in medical ethics
- Barclay argues that Situation Ethics gives people too much freedom, which is dangerous in medical contexts.
- Without clear rules, individuals may justify harmful actions as “loving.”
- For example, in embryo ethics, parents or clinics could pressure decisions like abortion, PGD selection, or embryo destruction for financial, social, or convenience-based reasons, while claiming it benefits wellbeing.
- Similarly, in assisted dying, vulnerable patients could be pressured by relatives seeking inheritance, or by subtle societal and economic pressures (e.g. reducing healthcare costs), leading to decisions that are not genuinely autonomous.
- This supports the view that human judgement is often shaped by self-interest, making unrestricted autonomy risky.
Counter
- However, J. A. T. Robinson argues that humanity has “come of age” and is capable of responsible moral decision-making.
- In modern societies, greater emphasis on autonomy reflects respect for individuals as rational agents.
- In medical ethics, this supports allowing people to make deeply personal decisions about abortion or assisted dying, even if risks exist.
- Denying this freedom may itself be unloving, as it overrides individual circumstances and suffering.
Evaluation
- Barclay’s argument remains more convincing in application.
- Medical decisions often involve power imbalances and external pressures, meaning choices may not be fully free.
- Evidence from wider society suggests behaviour can deteriorate without constraints, and autonomy alone does not eliminate self-interest.
- Therefore, while autonomy is important, it requires legal and ethical safeguards to prevent abuse.
- This suggests Situation Ethics is too optimistic about human nature if applied without clear guardrails in medical ethics.
AO2: Whether Natural Law is outdated in medical ethics
- Natural Law may be outdated because it reflects medieval conditions rather than modern medical contexts.
- Mill argued biblical morality suited a more “barbaric” time, and Aquinas’ precepts reflect this.
- In a period with higher violence, limited medicine, and fragile social order, strict rules on killing and reproduction (e.g. absolute bans on abortion or euthanasia) helped preserve stability.
- However, in modern societies with advanced healthcare, welfare systems, and greater education, these conditions have changed.
- In issues like embryo research or assisted dying, absolute rules may now prevent beneficial outcomes, such as reducing suffering or advancing medicine.
- So, the original reasoning behind Natural Law’s strict sanctity of life may no longer be relevant.
Counter
- Aquinas would argue that Natural Law comes from God, so it cannot become outdated.
- If society changes its views, then society is wrong, not the moral law.
Evaluation
- The strongest critique is that Natural Law reflects the needs of Aquinas’ time rather than universal truths.
- Strict precepts like preserving life would have been highly useful in maintaining order in a less stable society, which explains their development.
- This suggests Aquinas did not discover divine law, but identified principles that worked for his context.
- If so, the sanctity of life is not objectively grounded but historically conditioned, weakening its authority in modern medical ethics.
AO2: The slippery slope (applied to medical ethics)
- The slippery slope argument claims that allowing practices like euthanasia or embryo destruction in limited cases can lead to wider, more harmful uses.
- For example, allowing assisted dying for terminal illness could extend to non-terminal or mental illness, or create pressure on patients to reduce costs.
- Similarly, in embryo ethics, allowing embryo research or PGD for serious conditions could expand to selecting traits like gender or intelligence.
- This suggests that once we judge life by quality, it becomes difficult to draw clear limits, so sanctity of life provides a safer boundary.
Counter
- Singer argues this risk is overstated.
- He claims we can combine quality of life with autonomy to prevent abuse, so only voluntary decisions are allowed.
- Evidence from places like Oregon shows euthanasia is rare and not targeted at vulnerable groups.
- There is also no clear evidence of it becoming more widespread.
- In embryo ethics, regulation can limit PGD to serious conditions, preventing misuse.
Evaluation
- The slippery slope is less convincing when applied carefully.
- The Nazi example is often used, but their approach to euthanasia was their starting point, not a gradual slide.
- This suggests the real issue is having clear ethical principles and safeguards.
- With strong regulation, autonomy and quality of life can be used without leading to morally troubling outcomes.
AO1: strengths and weaknesses of religious vs secular approaches to medical ethics
- Weakness: Religious ethics can be too restrictive in medical decisions, limiting personal autonomy in cases like abortion or assisted dying.
- Strength: Religious ethics provides clear moral limits that protect vulnerable people from pressure and misuse of freedom in medical contexts.
- Weakness: Religious medical ethics may be based on outdated ideas about preserving life that do not fit modern society, healthcare or technology.
- Strength: Religious ethics offers a consistent principle of the sanctity of life, preventing harmful decisions based on convenience or changing social views.
- Weakness: Religious ethics can allow unnecessary suffering through its strict views on the status of the embryo and assisted dying.
- Strength: Religious ethics avoids the risks of a slippery slope by setting firm boundaries on practices that could otherwise expand in harmful ways.