NL and E

[Sarahboo2002]

In my textbook it says Natural law allows a patient to refuse treatment if it is and extraordinary means. Proportion is important in NL and actually enables each situation to be looked at individually, so that the action which is proportionate to the needs of the patient is chosen. The weak sanctity of life argument says that where death is inevitable the doctor treats the oatients with care and compassion: ‘thou shalt not kill; but need not strive officiously to keep aslive’ Arthur Clough’s poem sums up this view. There is no obligation under NL for people to go to great lengths to keep someone alive when the tratment offered is burdensome and not meaningful…. I’m struggling to understand this as I dont remember learning natural law was actually about supporting what naturally happens and so therefore not necessarily requiring extraordinary means; I thought it was about using reason.

[Aimee Horsley]

Hi sarah, we use reason to work out through casuistry what is and is not natural. Sometimes reason can justify the use of means to preserve life such as pace makers but these are not natural but if the intention is to preserve life then it can work with doctrine of double effect. This argument works because the person’s life will continue with that support however if a person is dying then forcing extraordinary means/ burdensome approaches is not acceptable as the natural course at some point is death. So preserve life where you can but at some point the line has to be drawn. I have explained this in a slightly different way in your earlier questions on euthanasia too 🙂

[Sarahboo2002]

Ahh ok thank you, this sounds stupid but is the whole point of Natural law to determine what action is natural? Like does the natural actio nmean the moral one?

[Author]

Posts