Citation

Gerrie J. Techne: Research in Philosophy and Technology 2012; 16(3): 317-329.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2012)

DOI

10.5840/techne201216320

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

James Rachels has argued on Utilitarian grounds that since removing lifesustaining treatment and physician-assisted suicide both aim at the very same end, hastening death to limit suffering, there are no morally significant moral distinctions between them. Others have argued for maintaining this distinction based on various forms of deontological and rights-based ethical theories that maintain that all acts of killing are inherently wrong. I argue that the enduring controversy over physicianassisted suicide might not be caused by such fundamental differences of opinion about moral theory, such as that which exists between Utilitarianism and Deontology, so much as by a commonly held misunderstanding of technology. In particular, the conclusion that there are no relevant ethical distinctions between killing and letting die can only be drawn by a Utilitarian, such as Rachels, by ignoring the recent work of philosophers of technology on the non-neutrality thesis.

Language: en

Keywords

Bioethics; Primary and secondary instrumentalization; Science and technology studies