On the moral permissibility of active, voluntary, physician-administered euthanasia

Simple item page
dc.contributor.advisorVan Niekerk, Anton A. en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorJoseph, Cameron Alberten_ZA
dc.contributor.otherStellenbosch University. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Dept. of Philosophy. Applied Ethics.en_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-27T17:06:40Zen_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-26T19:19:38Zen_ZA
dc.date.available2024-02-27T17:06:40Zen_ZA
dc.date.available2024-04-26T19:19:38Zen_ZA
dc.date.issued2023-11en_ZA
dc.descriptionThesis (MPhil)--Stellenbosch University, 2023.en_ZA
dc.description.abstractENGLISH ABSTRACT: Voluntary Physician-Administered Euthanasia (VPAE) is currently illegal in many countries including the Republic of South Africa. Most proponents of VPAE argue for its permissibility by reference to either a respect for autonomy or acting in the patient’s best interest. In this paper I have argued that none of these arguments are solely sufficient to make the case for VPAE. Rather, viewing them as equally important and necessary conditions which rise to the level of justification for VPAE is a more tenable solution to the moral dilemma at hand. Objections related to the Dualistic View, palliative care, slippery slope arguments, the doctrine of double effect and issues relating to the right to life raise important considerations with regards to the practice of VPAE. Whilst these objections serve as prudent safeguards on the practice of VPAE, none of them ultimately rise to the level of a convincing rebuttal to the argument in favour of VPAE. As such, I believe that the arguments outlined in this paper favour the moral permissibility of VPAE. It is my hope that a recognition of the moral permissibility of this practice will spur both the legislature and the judiciary in South Africa to strongly reconsider the current prohibition of VPAE.en_ZA
dc.description.abstractAFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Vrywillige genadedood met bystand van ‘n dokter is tans onwetting in baie lande, insluitende die Republiek van Suid Afrika. Meeste voorstanders van genadedood stry vir die toelaatbaarheid daarvan deur verwysing na respek vir outonomie of om in in die pasiënt se beste belang op te tree. In hierdie tesis sal ek die saak beredeneer dat geeneen van hierdie twee argumente afsonderlik die saak vir die toelaatbaarheid van genadedood verantwoord nie. Ek is van mening dat albei gelykelik belangrik en nodig is. Besware teen genadedood sal ook oorweeg word. Alhoewel hierdie besware belangrike kwalifikasies vir die morele toelaatbaarheid die praktyk van genadedood is, is geen van hulle afsonderlik sterk genoeg om die saak ten gunste van genadedood te verwerp of te aanvaar nie. Ter opsomming glo ek dat die argumente wat aangevoer word in hierdie tesis ten gunste van die morele toelaatbaarheeid van genadedood uitval. My hoop is dat sowel wetgewing as die reg in Suid-Afrika die reg tot genadedood sal hersien en veranderaf_ZA
dc.description.versionMastersen_ZA
dc.format.extent91 pagesen_ZA
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/130485en_ZA
dc.language.isoen_ZAen_ZA
dc.language.isoen_ZAen_ZA
dc.publisherStellenbosch : Stellenbosch Universityen_ZA
dc.rights.holderStellenbosch Universityen_ZA
dc.subject.lcshEuthanasia -- Moral and ethical aspectsen_ZA
dc.subject.lcshAutonomy (Philosophy)en_ZA
dc.subject.lcshAssisted suicideen_ZA
dc.subject.lcshMoral motivationen_ZA
dc.titleOn the moral permissibility of active, voluntary, physician-administered euthanasiaen_ZA
dc.typeThesisen_ZA
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
joseph_moral_2024.pdf
Size:
2.81 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
Collections
Masters Degrees (Philosophy)