[Human life as goodness: why euthanasia is morally unacceptable].

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Moral Philosophy
• Medical Ethics

Background:

• The ethical debate surrounding euthanasia often lacks shared premises between opposing viewpoints.
• Current discussions frequently overlook the concept of the 'good life' as a unifying ethical focus.
• Dominant theories in bioethics, such as utilitarianism, are critiqued for their adequacy in addressing the value of life.

Purpose of the Study:

• To explore the concept of the good life as a common ground for ethical discussions on euthanasia.
• To critically evaluate hedonistic and desire-fulfillment theories of the good life in the context of euthanasia.
• To establish a moral framework, based on natural law theory, that prohibits the intentional termination of innocent human life.

Main Methods:

• Critical analysis of hedonism and desire-fulfillment theories regarding their descriptive adequacy.
• Development of an argument for the natural law theory, emphasizing life as an objective good.
• Distinction between the moral categories of 'causing harm' (including ending life) and 'allowing harm' (including death).

Main Results:

• Hedonism and desire-fulfillment theories are found to be inadequate in capturing the essence of a good life.
• Natural law theory provides a robust framework for understanding life as an objective good, leading to the prohibition of euthanasia.
• A moral asymmetry is identified between actively causing death and passively allowing death, suggesting different ethical evaluations.

Conclusions:

• An innocent human life cannot be intentionally ended under any circumstances.
• The distinction between causing harm and allowing harm is morally significant and should guide ethical decision-making in end-of-life care.
• The moral admissibility of allowing a patient to die does not justify the active termination of life.