Citation

Birnbacher D. Erkenntnis 2020; 85(3): 575-588.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2020)

DOI

10.1007/s10670-020-00244-1

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Supporting the (active) rational suicide of a patient with a terminal disease is opposed by a majority of German doctors, whereas assistance in such patients' hastening their death by voluntarily stopping eating and drinking (VSED) is predominantly judged to be acceptable. Are these two positions compatible? It is argued that the normative differentiation cannot be justified by the fact that the assistance in active suicide is itself active, whereas assistance in VSED is merely passive. Even in "letting die" a patient from hastening death by refusing nutrition and hydration there is an active element in the doctor's/the palliative care team's assurance that they will provide palliative support in case of need. Nor can the difference in evaluation be justified by relevant differences in the causal situation. Enabling a patient to perform VSED and assisting a patient's active suicide under the same circumstances are, as far as causal relevance is concerned, on a par. This holds, at least, on a condition view of causality in the tradition of John Stuart Mill. Finally, the paper discusses whether there are other morally relevant dimensions by which actively and passively supporting a patient suicide under the relevant circumstances differ, again with a negative result. © 2020, The Author(s).

Language: en