I do not understand here you listening
Jacob I can't understand what you said
it okay you want to know yes I'm ready
to begin okay
what is the concept of utilitarian needs
I'm sorry this time this is a prayer
going on having traveled after senator
what is the concept we need to talk to
the vigil terrorism utilitarianism is
the ethical video that right thing to do
is the action that will have the best
consequences for everyone affected by
direction both in the immediate
short-term future and in the longer term
as well okay ask what is the hell of
what is the health mass of practical
ethics considering the woods different
values ingredients for to adopt
political actors in general cages so
practically fixed its the field in which
we discussed what we ought to do in a
wide range of practical situations in
fact in in France in all possible
situations as far as we can discuss
those questions of course people do
counter practical ethics with different
views but those of us who do practical I
think believe that we can advance a
national discussion of these questions
that it is possible to reason about
ethical issues and that by discussing
them and reasoning about them we will
make progress we will get to better
benefit openness then we would if we did
not
written about ethical questions okay ah
one more question given the various ways
of acting information what would be the
dimensions of practical editors not sure
that I really understand what you're
asking now as I said practical ethics
the move to answer given the various
inspiration what would be the nation's
of practical ethics this I understand
what's going on understand what my inane
I'm sorry I mean I can have a page one
which just said it you're asking about
the dimensions of practical ethics it is
a completely comprehensive it covers all
possible ethical questions okay what is
the philosophical read of distinction
between a human being a person the term
person is a 19-1 which comes from latin
from the latin persona where originally
it stood for a role that an act applied
in a play and then subsequently it was
taken up about very early christian
theologians in their discussions of the
doctrine of the trinity across the
christian doctrine of the trinity holds
that there are three persons that God is
three persons only one of those persons
is a human being God the Father and the
Holy Spirit are clearly not human beings
but according into Christian theologians
they are persons so what that shows is
that there is a conceptual difference
between a person and
and later philosophers like John Locke
suggested that the term person should be
used to refer to a rational thinking
being and being within the sense of
themself with an entertainer and I think
that's a useful yeah and if we use the
person to to refer to a learning
thinking being then clearly some members
of the human species are not persons
voters for example with very severe
brain damage so that they are not
self-aware or not thinking of themselves
as existing over time and having
non-human animals for example
chimpanzees do appear to be cousins they
do a pitiful be able to think of
themselves over time and a bit aware so
that is why the term person is not the
same as the term human being okay
professor what is the value of human
life I think one can ask in general what
the value of human life is the value of
human life varies with the circumstances
of that life for example we have babies
born with a condition called and in
capital e that essentially means no
brain they are not brain dead they they
can but they can never be conscious at
all they could such a baby for example
would never recognize those his other
mother and although that is a human life
notably that being is a member of a
species Homo Sapien and is alive I don't
think there is any life without
consciousness I think there is no value
on the other hand with most human beings
across if they have a reasonable quality
of life and the value of their life is
is immense means everything to them
of everything that they can experience
so we have to always look at the
condition of the MMRF we cannot send
this updated human life in itself is a
great value is only a great value when
it has a certain minimal quality okay is
there a is there a special to the life
of our rational and self-assured
grouping as opposed to an irrational
thing I don't think that the faculty is
rational necessarily means that that
being a logic has greater value than the
lightest of being who is not rational
what I think is that when you have a
rational being if it was capable of
reflecting on their own life then they
are the one who should be making the
decision as whether they wish to go on
living or not so a rational being can
judge whether he or she wants to go on
living and some circumstances for
instance if it are terminally ill and in
great pain they may ask not to go on
living they may ask their doctor for
assistance in dying sooner rather than
later so the better gesture they judge
as they continued life in those
circumstances is not effective on the
other hand a a non rational being is not
capable of making such a judgments and
I'm capable of thinking about the issue
of whether to go on living or not and
the betterment of their life is not a
value because they deny experience
pleasure and then their life maybe in a
year or they may be experiencing a lot
of pain in which case still life would
not be a valuable T of negative value
the difference they bought difference
between rational and non rational beings
is in the question of who makes the
decision as to whether it is better for
them to continue to live or not what is
wrong a monkey
well there's not always something wrong
about killing there are cases where
killing is the right thing to do
for example a case I just mentioned
about a patient of yours Journal deal
who is irrational and understands is a
her situation clearly and asks for help
in dying from the doctor killing that
patient on that patient suppress maybe
right thing to do but if we are talking
about somebody who wants to go on living
then to kill them is to violate their
autonomy and that other to go against
their very strong upon preferences and
that is normally the wrong thing to do
so again when is what is wrong with
killing will depend on whether the being
who is whose life is being taken
once the continued to live and also on
the quality of their life in the case of
a non rational being account killing
will be wrong at the prior at the being
of good life but it coulda just have
continued to have okay our emotion in
open as a moral duty Seattle I think
that both abortion and euthanasia can be
morally justifiable yes with the case of
abortion I think that potentially
abortion should be about the Chartists
of the pregnant woman if she does not
wish to be pregnant and if she has an
abortion at least if she has the
abortion early enough in pregnancy so
that the fetus is not capable of feeling
pain which would mean probably something
like five months of pregnancy then I
think that should be entirely a choice I
don't think the fetus is at that stage
kind of being who is aware of anything
and I don't think it is wrong to end the
life of the
because when the fetus is not capable of
feeling pain after that it becomes the
more serious question as both as
important the woman's reasons for
abortion might be in case of euthanasia
as I already said in response to a
previous question okay if they did is
something the patient requests then I
think that is justifiable under certain
safeguards or the kind that exist in
countries that have legalized physician
assistance in dying like Canada so to
California in the state of Oregon in the
United States and Belgium and the
Netherlands in Europe I think that is is
justifiable on a patient's request what
that we made legal and concern with the
elements about abortion in connection
well the thing I've just given you the
liberal view on abortion and euthanasia
it's not the only view there are other
use the Liberals argue but essentially I
think they would argue that the woman's
choice to be pregnant to have a child
should override any supposed to life of
the embryo or fetus emmonak since I'm
going to think the area of operators
tender right colada I think that that is
normally a reasonable decision
conservatives will I gave you that the
embryo is the unit being from the moment
of conception and therefore has the same
right to life as any other human being
but I think that that is a mistake I
don't think you get a right to life
simply by being a member of a particular
species I think that rather you get a
right to life because of the capacities
that you have going to pick your time
and a number of other questions
including the quality of the life that
you will have and I suppose even larger
questions about the desirability of
bearing to the population in the place
where you are living and
might also to be relevant I think it's a
mistake to assume that just because I'm
being as a member of the species Homo
Sapien it is wrong to prevent that being
from continuing to lose okay is
involuntary intonation morally correct
it is operable to model it just by
involuntary energy we mean you say that
against the will of a patient who is
capable of choosing at this level or die
then involuntary igniters I think never
justifiable it's almost a contradiction
in terms
on the other hand I think what I would
draw on on voluntary euthanasia is
sometimes justifiable non volunteers
manager is it's an age where the Oh
making a decision or expressing a wish
you
transit area the roll okay automation
okay
yes
I asked you a killing in adults morally
worth that killing a child I don't think
in general there's a distinction between
the moral seriousness of killing and
adults and a child both of them can
either be justified if it is at the
request of the an Alton if it is all the
charges we're talking about that it may
be a charge in my capable of making
choices job is very young at the request
of the parents and after reviewing the
prospect of a child again if we're
talking about a very severely disabled
infant with the very poor prognosis for
having a with what Allah meaning for
life and by the ways can be justified
it's not a question of whether it is an
adult or a child as a question of E
which is a and the prospects of
reasonable body of life for the channel
okay professor the last question what is
the moral relevance of Steel II active
euthanasia in Latin I'm testicle canasa
in then what there isn't be the same I'm
sorry I didn't understand what you asked
me well what is what is the same for
relevance of killing euthanasia at
people in Latin died yeah oh okay well
well yes I think that very often people
draw a big distinction between whether
you bring about it is by letting
some way by withdrawing medical
treatment for example you have a very
severely disabled the infant and you
think the prospects of that infant are
very poor and so the doctors take the
respirator take the baby off the
respirator knowing that the baby is not
going to be able to breathe and often
people think that that is permissible
but that it would not be permissible to
do something more active such as giving
the baby a lethal injection but I think
that's a mistake I think that in both
cases you are doing something that you
know and fully intend will bring about
the death of the infant and whether that
dad comes through the drawing what's
really an addiction in my view is not
morally relevant it may psychologically
be perceived as relevant and there may
be some differences in the suffering
affected maybe there may be more
suffering if you withdraw the baby from
respirator than if you give the baby a
lethal injection so those factors are
relevant but I think seeing that there
is some kind being moral distinction
between bringing about the death of a
patient by drawing a respirator rather
than giving a lethal injection I think
it's a mistake to think that there is
such a big moral difference yes because
India is the death expression in got any
until you are bringing about the death
of of the patient of the human being and
you know that you're doing it you're
intending to do that so I think that to
draw a sharp moral line between the two
is not correct okay professor
one more question
till then LLL tenacious apply it in
terminal patient to lead to the
extermination of invalid genocidal
practice
well yeah I'm not sure that I understand
the the question but if you're trying to
draw a connection between providing
bottom trivia the nitrification to
request it and some kind of genocide
such as what the market area though I
just don't think there is any connection
at all
and we have now had 30 years experience
of voluntaries in Asia in the
Netherlands we've had nearly 20 years
experience of physician-assisted dining
in the state of Oregon in the United
States and varying periods in other
jurisdictions available and there was
absolutely no sign of this is leading to
genocide or to any killing of people who
are unwanted or undesirable so I think
that's a really curious argument to
attack is a major in its modern form is
in some way connected with genocide just
just isn't right
typical clues are you in favor of a
right to die with dignity in which teams
and I in favor right to die is that what
you're asking are you yeah or even in a
favor of to die with dignity
well I'm in favor of people dying in the
way they choose and if somebody wishes
to die with dignity and I think that
they should have that option if somebody
does not see it as an important identity
and they want to live as long as they
can then the subject to whatever medical
resources are available I think they
should be able to go on living so I
think that talk of a right to divert
dignity should really be replaced with
sort of allowing patients to choose for
themselves how they wish to die okay
professor
we finished the interview now I'd like
to
so you are considerations but and when
published they interview I am IRA may I
remind you your mail the military
developed I will send that on Twitter
and Facebook so that more people can
watch it okay thank you
again you're welcome bye bye
