- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Also, in my textbook it says that passive euthanasia may be seen as morally permissable on the grounds that it merely allows nature to take its course. This could be attractive to a natural law theorist, since it puts emphasis on allowing the natural course to run… I’m struggling to understnad this, I thoguh tnatural law would always want to preserve life. I though it was called natural law because we use our natural god-given reason, not that we should act naturaly and so allow passive euthanasia?
Thanks so so much and sorry for all the questionsI just dont really understand where in natural law it says we should act naturally. Is it because we should use our reason to reason what is natural happen, but ideally our reason would tell us to follow the primary precepts?
Your logic in the second point is right. Reason to work out what naturally happens in line with PP but euthanasia means someone is dying and therefore passive euthanasia is removing medicine/excessive means to let nature take its course. NL would always promote trying to save life but at some point no matter what you do they are going to die so forcing them to take means to stay alive such as chemotherapy is not required. I think you are getting confused with the euthanasia part. Dont forgot euthanasia is only permissible in extreme situations where a person is dying. Someone that needs a blood transfusion or transplant or pace maker can go on living for years, so NL would promote the use of reason to support the PP in these cases. But for someone with a terminal illness for example that is considering euthanasia, NL cannot and would not permit forcing of treatment. Hope this clarifies for you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.