Naser Aghab Babaee,
Volume 4, Issue 2 (4-2011)
Abstract
Theologians describe the difference between active and passive euthanasia as in the former, we kill hopeless patients terribly suffering from an incurable disease and in the latter, and we let them die. The present research aimed at exploring for a solution to an ethical dilemma by which the difference between foundational concepts of the two types of euthanasia can be examined. Another objective of the study was to assess personal characteristics regarding this judgment. One hundred and five students were recruited, and in addition to reading the trolley problem and answering the related questions, they responded to a six-point scale self-assessment on morality and a short 20-point scale questionnaire on the five principle personality factors. Results showed that 83.8% of respondents found it immoral to kill one person in order to save 5 lives. Respondents' gender, religiousness and personality had no significant effect on their responses regarding the footbridge dilemma (P<0.05). Nonetheless, extroversion had an almost significant relationship (P=0.056, r=0.19). According to the results of the present study, the difference between "killing" and "letting die" is clear to most people, and they do not prefer killing even when there is more benefit than loss. Responses to the trolley problem were independent of personal characteristics, nonetheless, the quality of extroversion is suggested a as a potential determinant of agreement with active euthanasia.
Gholamhossein Tavakoli,
Volume 5, Issue 7 (2-2013)
Abstract
Euthanasia has been the subject of much controversy during the last three decades. In ethics most philosophers divide it into active and passive euthanasia and consider the first option to be immoral. There are some thinkers, however, who deny any moral significance in such a distinction. Among them and perhaps the first in this arena is James Rachels who is followed by other thinkers like Jonathan Bennett and Michael Tooley. Rachels poses his equivalence theory. By this he means that assuming the stability of other factors in a given circumstance and focusing on the variable of act and omission alone we would find that there is no moral difference between the two. He tries to defend his theory by the way of parallel examples and parity of reasons. We are going to evaluate his arguments by explaining and then criticizing them. In this regard we will examine briefly some counter-examples, and then we will have a look at some answers of other philosophers like Philippa Foot and Will Cartwright. We try to assess these refutations and finally we are going to offer two answers in the hope that these answers solve the problem.
Aria Hejazi, Alireza Moshirahmadi, Golnaz Sabetian, Nazila Badieeyian Mousavi ,
Volume 9, Issue 5 (1-2017)
Abstract
Euthanasia is still a controversial issue worldwide. There are different and sometimes contradictory opinions about euthanasia and its practice. By exchange of ideas and opinions about this issue, some countries have explicitly accepted euthanasia and it has been legalized. Whereas, some other countries distinctly rejected euthanasia and in result it has been criminalized. Among countries there is a third group, with a passive or neutral position. In those countries, like Iran, the acceptance or rejection of euthanasia has been discussed among the law experts but there is no legislation to address the issue. This article aims to evaluate euthanasia based on the Article 372 of Iran's Islamic penal code.
