RELG 2650 Test Questions with Correct Answers

RELG 2650 Test Questions with Correct Answers Walter - "Historical &cultural variants on the good death" - Answer-How what constitutes a good death has changed in modern, Western cultures to be a more individual experience Dorff - "The Jewish Tradition: Religious Beliefs &Health Care Decisions" - Answer-Jews may enroll in hospice program, can have painkillers that can hasten death as along as intent is to alleviate pain, not kill. Feel good, not suffer. Celebrate your body Harakas - "Death, Dying, and Euthanasia" (Orthodox Christian Tradition) - AnswerSerious spiritual growth can take place through suffering, there is some significant value therefore the only good death is when the person accepts their death in moral and spiritual purity and putting hope and trust in God. Euthanasia is either murder (w/o consent) or suicide (w/ consent). Church and medical professionals both want to sustain life. Ok to LET die but NOT euthanasia. Hauerwas - "Rational Suicide" - Answer-Our lives are not our own, duty to take care of ourselves. Being faithful to God by preserving our lives. Does NOT believe suicide can be justified even if rational/autonomous Meilander - "Euthanasia and the Christian Vision" - Answer-• Euthanasia is morally wrong-focuses on morality • Focuses on aims, results, and motives (purpose/aim can be diff. even if result - death - is same) Evaluate aim before motive • People have evil aims and justify them by good motives (kill to relieve suffering) • Takes Christian theology • Not an act of love • Suffering can be redemptive • Death is no consequence: Christians don't fear death, not something +/- but something inevitable but you should not aim for death. Arras - "The Right to Health Care" - Answer-• Opposes euthanasia but considers it moral in some situations • Fears a slippery slope-social consequences of euthanasia: • Wouldn't stay inside its boundaries • Abuse of the system Callahan - "When Self-Determination Runs Amok" - Answer-• People argue the right of self-determination for euthanasia; but euthanasia moves into a mutual decision between two people-one to kill, the other to die • It's a fundamental moral wrong for one person to give his life and fate over to anotherno one should have that kind of total, final power • The doctor would have to decide on his/her own whether the patient's life was worth living, and that is not their/medicine's place to determine • There is no objective way to measure the degree of one's suffering • Consequences of euthanasia: abuse of the law, difficulty of writing and enforcing the law, slipperiness of moral reasons for legalizing euthanasia in the first place • There are no good moral reasons to limit euthanasia once it is legal in the first place: does a competent person have more of a right to be killed than an incompetent person who is also suffering? Euthanasia would add a whole new category of killing to a society that already has too many excuses to indulge itself in that way. Quill - "Doctor, I want to die. Will you help me?" - Answer-Listen and learn from the patient before responding • Follow up: physicians should try to understand the reason behind the request-the depth of suffering, fears, superstitions, etc. • Does the request stem from financial stress or fear of pressure on the family of the patient? • Is the depression reversible? • Explore the meanings behind the statements o Be compassionate, caring, and creative • Change in focus-focus on comfort care instead o Promise to be there until the end o If asked, be honest about your openness to the possibility of assisted suicide o Try to approach intolerable end-of-life suffering with an open heart and an open mind o Do not forget your own support Pellegrino - "Compassion Needs Reason Too" - Answer-He argues that Quill tries to make it seem like the patient makes the decision but the physician has all the control o Quill attempts to argue that a morally wrong act can become morally right if reasoned the right way-a bit fishy but circumstantially could be a grey area o Lines for extreme cases which call for PAS are easily blurred by physicians and the end decision often falls to the family or physician instead of the patient o "Line of cases" idea: Can't make a situational evaluation the moral norm for evaluating PAS