BibTex RIS Cite

Is the Distinction Between Active and Passive Euthanasia a Moral Distinction?

Year 2014, Issue: 17, 47 - 70, 01.05.2014

Abstract

In this paper, we tackle two views on the distinction between active euthanasia, mercy killing of a terminal patient, and passive euthanasia, letting a terminal patient die. The first view argues that there is no moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia, and passive euthanasia is morally on a par with active euthanasia. The second view, on the other hand, argues that there is a significant moral difference between these practices. In the case of active euthanasia, it is argued, it is the doctor who causes the patient’s death, whereas in the case of passive euthanasia, it is the illness itself that causes patient’s death. In response to these views, we argue that both claims have some shortcomings in the sense that they both make the same generalizations from the opposite viewpoint. It is not true that every case of passive euthanasia is morally on a par with active euthanasia, and it is not true, too, that every case of passive euthanasia has different moral implications from active euthanasia. Considering the contextual nature of the issue, we argue that in some cases they have the same moral implications, whereas in some other cases they do not

References

  • Bennet, Jonathan. The Act Itself, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
  • Campbell, Robert and Collinson, Diane. Ending Lives, New York: Basil Blackwell, 1988.
  • Fletcher, George P. ‘Prolonging Life: Some Legal Considerations’, in Bonnie Steinbock and
  • Alastair Norcross eds., Killing and Letting Die, New York: Fordham University Press, 1994, ss. 88-102.
  • Food, Philippa. ‘The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect’, in Bonnie
  • Steinbock and Alastair Norcross eds., Killing and Letting Die, New York: Fordham University Press, 1994, ss. 266-279.
  • Foot, Philippa. ‘Killing and Letting die’, in Bonnie Steinbock and Alastair Norcross eds.
  • Killing and Letting Die, New York: Fordham University Press, 1994, ss. 280- 289.
  • Frey, R. G. ‘The Doctrine of Double Effect’, in R. G. Frey and C. H. Wellman eds., A Companion to Applied Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell, 2003, ss. 464-474.
  • Frey, R. G. ‘Intending and Causing’, The Journal of Ethics, 9, 2005, ss. 465- 474.
  • Gibson, Susanne. ‘Acts and Omissions’, in Ruth Chadwick ed., Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, London: Academic Press, 1998, vol. I, ss. 23-28.
  • Glover, Jonathan. Causing Death and Saving Lives, London: Penguin Books, 1990.
  • Harris, John. ‘The Survival Lottery’, in Peter Singer ed., Applied Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986, ss. 87-95.
  • İnceoğlu, Sibel. Ötanazi: Ölme Hakkı, İstanbul: Ayrıntı, 1999.
  • Kant, Immanuel. Ahlak metafiziğinin Temellendirilmesi, çev. İoanna Kuçuradi, Ankara: Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu, 2002.
  • Kuyurtar, Erol. ‘Haklar’, Liberal Düşünce’, Sayı 34 (Bahar), 2004, ss. 163-174.
  • Kuyurtar, Erol. ‘Ötanazinin Ahlâksallığı’, Felsefelogos, 32 (1), 2007, ss. 115- 134.
  • Kuyurtar, Erol. ‘Ötanazi Üzerine Kısa Bir Tartışma’, Felsefelogos, 33-34 (2-3), 2007, ss. 155-161.
  • Nesbitt, Winston. Is killing No Worse than Letting Die?’, in David Booning and Graham Oddie eds., What’s Wrong?: Applied Ethicists and their Critics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, ss. 48-51.
  • Norcross, Alastair. ‘Intending and Foreseeing: Patholes on the Road to Hell’, The Southwest Philosophy Review, Vol. 15 (1), 1999, ss. 115-123.
  • Norcross, Alastair. ‘Killing and Letting Die’, in R. G. Frey and C. H. Wellman eds., A Companion to Applied Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell, 2003, ss.451- 463.
  • Nuttal, Jon. Ahlak Üzerine Tartışmalar, çev. Abdullah Yılmaz, İstanbul: Ayrıntı, 1997.
  • Pascal, Louis. ‘Judgement Day’, in Peter Singer ed., Applied Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986, ss. 105-123.
  • Rachels, James. ‘Active and Passive Euthanasia’, in Peter Singer ed., Applied Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986, ss. 29-35. (‘Aktif ve Pasif Ötanazi’, Felsefe Tartışmaları, İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 36. Kitap, 2006.)
  • Rachels, James. The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
  • Rachels, James. ‘More Impertinent Distinctions and a Defense of Active Euthanasia’, in Bonnie Steinbock and Alastair Norcross eds., Killing and Letting Die, New York: Fordham University Press, 1994, ss. 139- 154
  • Rachels, James. Can Ethics Provide Answers?: And Other Essays in Moral Philosophy, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997.
  • Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
  • Solomon, William David. ‘Double Effect’, in Lawrence C. Becker ed., Encyclopedia of Ethics, New York: Routledge, 2001, vol. I, ss. 418- 420.
  • Steinbock, Bonnie. ‘Introduction’, in Bonnie Steinbock and Alastair Norcross eds., Killing and Letting Die, New York: Fordham University Press, 1994, ss. 24-47.
  • Tooley, Michael. ‘An Irrelevant Consideration: Killing Versus Letting Die’, in Bonnie Steinbock and Alastair Norcross eds., Killing and Letting Die, New York: Fordham University Press, 1994, ss. 103-111.
  • Tooley, Michael. ‘Euthanasia and Asssisted Suicide’, in R. G. Frey and C. H. Wellman eds., A Companion to Applied Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell, 2003, ss. 326-341.

AKTİF VE PASİF ÖTANAZİ AYRIMI AHLAKSAL BİR AYRIM MIDIR?

Year 2014, Issue: 17, 47 - 70, 01.05.2014

Abstract

Bu yazıda, ölümcül hastalığından dolayı bir kimseyi kendi iyiliği için nazikçe öldürme pratiği olarak adlandırılan aktif ötanazi ile yine ölümcül hastalığından dolayı bir kimsenin ölme sürecine kendi iyiliği için müdahale edilmemesi anlamına gelen pasif ötanazi ayrımı üzerine ileri sürülen iki görüşü ele alıyoruz. Bu görüşlerden biri, aktif ve pasif ötanazi ayrımının ahlaksal bir ayrım olmadığını, dolayısıyla pasif ötanazi hangi ahlaksal zemindeyse, bu zeminin, aktif ötanazi için de geçerli olduğunu ileri sürer. İkinci görüş ise bu pratikler arasında önemli bir ahlaksal ayrımın olduğunu iddia eder. Buna göre, aktif ötanazide hastanın ölüm nedeni hekim olmasına karşın, pasif ötanazide bu ölümün nedeni hastalığın kendisidir. Öte yandan, her iki görüşün de genellemeci yaklaşımlarının problemli olduğuna vurgu yapacağız. Nitekim aktif ve pasif ötanazi ayrımının ahlaksal bakımdan denk olduğunu gösteren durumlar üzerinden, bu ayrımın her zaman ahlaksal bakımdan ilgisiz bir ayrım olduğuna dair ileri sürülen iddiayı reddetmekle birlikte; ayrımın ahlaksal bakımdan ilgili bir ayrım olduğunu gösteren durumlar üzerinden de, bu ayrımın her zaman farklı ahlaksal içerikler taşıdığına dair ileri sürülen bir iddiayı da reddedeceğiz. Meselenin bağlamsal doğasına vurgu yaparak bazı durumlarda bu pratiklerin aynı ahlaksal zeminde olduklarını, bazı durumlarda ise farklı ahlaksal değerleri içerdiklerini ileri süreceğiz

References

  • Bennet, Jonathan. The Act Itself, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
  • Campbell, Robert and Collinson, Diane. Ending Lives, New York: Basil Blackwell, 1988.
  • Fletcher, George P. ‘Prolonging Life: Some Legal Considerations’, in Bonnie Steinbock and
  • Alastair Norcross eds., Killing and Letting Die, New York: Fordham University Press, 1994, ss. 88-102.
  • Food, Philippa. ‘The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect’, in Bonnie
  • Steinbock and Alastair Norcross eds., Killing and Letting Die, New York: Fordham University Press, 1994, ss. 266-279.
  • Foot, Philippa. ‘Killing and Letting die’, in Bonnie Steinbock and Alastair Norcross eds.
  • Killing and Letting Die, New York: Fordham University Press, 1994, ss. 280- 289.
  • Frey, R. G. ‘The Doctrine of Double Effect’, in R. G. Frey and C. H. Wellman eds., A Companion to Applied Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell, 2003, ss. 464-474.
  • Frey, R. G. ‘Intending and Causing’, The Journal of Ethics, 9, 2005, ss. 465- 474.
  • Gibson, Susanne. ‘Acts and Omissions’, in Ruth Chadwick ed., Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, London: Academic Press, 1998, vol. I, ss. 23-28.
  • Glover, Jonathan. Causing Death and Saving Lives, London: Penguin Books, 1990.
  • Harris, John. ‘The Survival Lottery’, in Peter Singer ed., Applied Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986, ss. 87-95.
  • İnceoğlu, Sibel. Ötanazi: Ölme Hakkı, İstanbul: Ayrıntı, 1999.
  • Kant, Immanuel. Ahlak metafiziğinin Temellendirilmesi, çev. İoanna Kuçuradi, Ankara: Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu, 2002.
  • Kuyurtar, Erol. ‘Haklar’, Liberal Düşünce’, Sayı 34 (Bahar), 2004, ss. 163-174.
  • Kuyurtar, Erol. ‘Ötanazinin Ahlâksallığı’, Felsefelogos, 32 (1), 2007, ss. 115- 134.
  • Kuyurtar, Erol. ‘Ötanazi Üzerine Kısa Bir Tartışma’, Felsefelogos, 33-34 (2-3), 2007, ss. 155-161.
  • Nesbitt, Winston. Is killing No Worse than Letting Die?’, in David Booning and Graham Oddie eds., What’s Wrong?: Applied Ethicists and their Critics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, ss. 48-51.
  • Norcross, Alastair. ‘Intending and Foreseeing: Patholes on the Road to Hell’, The Southwest Philosophy Review, Vol. 15 (1), 1999, ss. 115-123.
  • Norcross, Alastair. ‘Killing and Letting Die’, in R. G. Frey and C. H. Wellman eds., A Companion to Applied Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell, 2003, ss.451- 463.
  • Nuttal, Jon. Ahlak Üzerine Tartışmalar, çev. Abdullah Yılmaz, İstanbul: Ayrıntı, 1997.
  • Pascal, Louis. ‘Judgement Day’, in Peter Singer ed., Applied Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986, ss. 105-123.
  • Rachels, James. ‘Active and Passive Euthanasia’, in Peter Singer ed., Applied Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986, ss. 29-35. (‘Aktif ve Pasif Ötanazi’, Felsefe Tartışmaları, İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 36. Kitap, 2006.)
  • Rachels, James. The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
  • Rachels, James. ‘More Impertinent Distinctions and a Defense of Active Euthanasia’, in Bonnie Steinbock and Alastair Norcross eds., Killing and Letting Die, New York: Fordham University Press, 1994, ss. 139- 154
  • Rachels, James. Can Ethics Provide Answers?: And Other Essays in Moral Philosophy, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997.
  • Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
  • Solomon, William David. ‘Double Effect’, in Lawrence C. Becker ed., Encyclopedia of Ethics, New York: Routledge, 2001, vol. I, ss. 418- 420.
  • Steinbock, Bonnie. ‘Introduction’, in Bonnie Steinbock and Alastair Norcross eds., Killing and Letting Die, New York: Fordham University Press, 1994, ss. 24-47.
  • Tooley, Michael. ‘An Irrelevant Consideration: Killing Versus Letting Die’, in Bonnie Steinbock and Alastair Norcross eds., Killing and Letting Die, New York: Fordham University Press, 1994, ss. 103-111.
  • Tooley, Michael. ‘Euthanasia and Asssisted Suicide’, in R. G. Frey and C. H. Wellman eds., A Companion to Applied Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell, 2003, ss. 326-341.
There are 32 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Erol Kuyurtar This is me

Publication Date May 1, 2014
Published in Issue Year 2014 Issue: 17

Cite

Chicago Kuyurtar, Erol. “AKTİF VE PASİF ÖTANAZİ AYRIMI AHLAKSAL BİR AYRIM MIDIR?”. FLSF Felsefe Ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, no. 17 (May 2014): 47-70.

Starting from 2024, our journal will be published in 3 issues as two regular and one special issues. These issues will be published In May (regular issue), September (special issue) and December (regular issue).

Acceptance of articles for our special issue and our regular issue in December will begin on March 15.

Only articles within the scope of the file will be included in our special issue. 

Thank you for your attention.