When beginning any discussion in ethics, it is always beneficial to begin on common footing. For, without the same definitions, nothing can be agreed upon. I think Aristotle said that, but I am not sure.

Here are some definitions of some terms that will be popping up here in some posts about biomedical ethics.

Suicide: Self-killing.

• Typically there is not a distinction between levels of beneficence.

Euthanasia: “Good Death”(eu-good; thanasia-death) The killing of another at the request of the person killed.

• Distinguished from Suicide because another agent besides the self is the cause of death.
• the assisting the death of another for reasons of beneficence.
• Also known as “mercy killing or “mercy Letting die”
• There are several different “flavors” of euthanasia.

Assisted Suicide - Distinct from euthanasia in that it is the enabling of suicide by another party.

• Most commonly this takes the form of Physician Assisted Suicide, or PAS.

When considering the moral and ethical implications of these issues, be sure to distinguish between casual evaluations and moral evaluations. Casual refers to simply how something happened. i.e. The knife passing thru Matt’s head was the cause of death. Moral refers to the ethical evaluation of an act. i.e. It is morally impermissible to place a knife thru Matt’s head. A lack of this distinction is often the cause of muddled issues in biomedical ethics.

Casual Distinctions in Euthanasia:

1. Passive or Letting Die: The withdraw of treatment or sustenance that will lead to death.
   • Also known as “Pulling the plug”
   • Can take the form of removing food or water, discontinuing a vital treatment.
2. Active or Killing: actively bringing ab out the death of a person.
   • i.e. lethal injection

Types of Consent involved in Euthanasia:

1. Voluntary - Person requests euthanasia
2. Non-voluntary - Person cannot request nor deny euthanasia due to a lack of decision making ability. This is found in long term comas.
3. In-voluntary- The person does not wish to be killed.

While there can be an argument made whether or not voluntary and nonvoluntary forms of euthanasia are morally permissible; all would agree that nonvoluntary euthanasia is tantamount to murder.

Now that we have casual and consensual distinctions within the term Euthanasia, we can combine them to form the six types of Euthanasia:

1. Voluntary Passive Euthanasia (VPE) - Patient requests to be allowed to die for the easement of their suffering
2. Voluntary Active Euthanasia (VAE) - Patient requests to be killed for the easement of their suffering
3. Nonvoluntary Passive Euthanasia (NPE) - Patient is not able to request death or sustained life and is allowed to die for the easement of their suffering.
4. Nonvoluntary Active Euthanasia (NAE) - Patient is not able to request death or sustained life and is killed for the easement of their suffering
5. Involuntary Passive Euthanasia (IPE) - Patient requests to be left alive/continue treatment and is allowed to die for the easement of their suffering.
6. Involuntary Active Euthanasia (IAE) - Patient requests to be left alive/continue treatment and is killed for the easement of their suffering.

It is hoped that when one starts with this background when examining the euthanasia issue, one be able to sort through the topic clearly.

As a skeptic, Hume did not like the idea of an I that produres. Why is this? Well, first lets get a concept of what Hume meant when he talked about I, or personal identity:

- The concept that I am, I exist as a mind of a certain structure that produres through time and changes

1. Memories, hopes, beliefs, a storage bin of impressions
2. Choice in what I think and that I have a sense of continuity, a sense of flow.

- I have a mind that has concepts in it.

Hume says that we should strip away from this concept thoughts, ideas, impressions - everything that the mind holds. Now, Where is the mind? Hume asks to show me where this thing that you call mind exists. Hume says that you can’t show Mind, Personality. It is meaninginless to try and .: it is of no use in philosophy. For Hume, the purpose of philosophy is to build knowledge. To Hume All that there is the changing elements. This can also be known as the bundle theory¹.

All one can percieve is the thinking; what is not percieved is the “I” behind the thinking. This is all done within a Cartesian framework. Since we cannot percieve the I behind the thinking we can’t know anything about the I. Remember, where Hume thought all ideas came from ² .

Q - Why do we think that there is an I behind the thinking?

A - It is convient. In the process of organizing the collection of memories we assume that there is a mind behind everything. But philosophically we cannot say anything about the mind, or that it even exists.