Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
A person apparently hopeless ill may be allowed to take his own life.
Then he may be permitted to deputize other to do it for him should he no
longer be able to act. The judgment of others then becomes the ruling fac-
tor. Already at this point euthanasia is not personal and voluntary, for others
are acting “on behalf of” the patient as they see fit. This may will incline
them to act on behalf of others patients who have not authorized them to
exercise their judgment. It is only a short step, them, from voluntary eu-
thanasia (self-inflicted or authorized), to directed euthanasia administered
to a patient who has given no authorization, to involuntary euthanasia con-
ducted as a part of a social policy. . . . The dangers of euthanasia are too
great to all to run the risk of approving it any form. The first slippery step
may well lead to a serious and harmful fall.
7
.
It is usual to identify the sorites (paradox of the heap) type of slippery slope argu-
ments with the vagueness of key concepts or terms. In the discussion on euthanasia,
Walton [20] says that slippery slope argument is due to the vagueness of expressions
such as 'letting die', 'actively causing the death', 'complying with patient's willing-
ness', and so on. However, such phrases can be used in a vague manner, but they can
also be used with no vagueness. But, yet all of them denote properties which admit
degrees. As we have pointed out before, all relevant features involved in euthana-
sia come in degrees: action, omission, terminal illness, painfulness, proportionate
means, unbearableness, life, and death.
9.4
The Issue of Norms and Values in Bioethics
One of the most important issues in Bioethics is the one referring to the norms and
values involved in the guidance of action. As we have seen before, controversies and
hard cases are the core of Bioethics. Moral conflicts and dilemmas constitute the
touchstone of Bioethics. Some have tried to minimize, or even deny, the existence of
genuine moral dilemmas - in many occasions in order to avoid the acknowledgment
of contradictions in the normative domain, especially among analytic philosophers
of law. However, ethical pluralism, the protection of conflicting interests, the diver-
sity of sources of obligations, casuistry itself, or even psychological answers, such
as remorse or guilt, seem to incline us to accept the existence of normative conflicts
[9]. So, weighing and balancing are the essential elements for rational argumenta-
tion in a contingent domain like Bioethics.
8
In relation to bioethical dilemmas, or conflicts, given certain circumstances (with
specific particular elements, with different agents involved), the choice in a partic-
ular moment of one particular precept, norm, or value over another does not cancel
the one rejected. Even if it weakens it, the now rejected norm can be adopted under
different circumstances. In other words, the non-applied norm still holds a degree
7
J. Gay-Williams, [8].
8
Leibniz coined the metaphor of “scales of reason”, rooted in Aristotle's
phronesis
, to refer
to this issue [2]. That concept of weighing is clearly inspired in the activities of jurists,
particularly, in their 'juris-prudential' doings.
