Bioethics in Faith and Practice, Volume 3, Number 1

32 Swazo ⦁ Non-voluntary Euthanasia 32 living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Bangladesh&country2=United+States . Bangladesh’s poverty headcount ratio is evaluated by the World Bank to be 18.5% of population in 2010 at US$1.90 per day (US$57 per month.) See here http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/BGD . 10 Walker, op. cit. note 2 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Agence France-Presse (2017, January 24). Bangladeshi Father Sparks Euthanasia Debate with Plea for Mercy Killing of Sons, Grandson. Retrieved on March 08, 2017 fro m http://interaksyon.com/article/136478/bangladeshi- father-sparks-euthanasia-debate-with-plea-for-mercy-killing-of-sons-grandson . 14 The cleric’s statement is subject to review and debate. For reasonable basis of debate, one may consider sources such as: Brock, Jonathan E. and Thomas Eich (Ed.)(2008). Muslim Medical Ethics: From Theory to Practice . Columbia: The University of South Carolina Press; Atigetchi, Darisuch (2007). Islamic Bioethics: Problems and Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer; Ards, Berna and Vardit Rispler-Chaim (Ed.) (2011). Islam and Bioethics . Ankara: Ankara Üniveritesi Basimevi; Sachedina, Abdulaziz (2009). Islamic Biomedical Ethics: Principles and Application . Oxford: Oxford University Press.. 15 Manninen, B.A. 2006. A case for justified non-voluntary active euthanasia: exploring the ethics of the Groningen Protocol, Journal of Medical Ethics , 32, 643-651. Retrieved on March 09, 2017, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27719743.pdf . 16 By ‘utilitarian’ we mean here one whose moral deliberation and decision is guided by the principle of utility (acting such that one achieves the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals who stand to be affected by a particular decision). Here the deliberation decision depends on predicted consequences and a determination of net goodness (good consequences, benefits, advantages exceeding bad consequences, costs/risks, disadvantages). 17 By ‘deontologist’ we mean here one whose moral deliberation and decision is guided by universal law of morality (what Kant calls the “categorical imperative” and the “law of humanity,” according to which individuals are always to be treated as autonomously deciding on the ends of life and never to be treated arbitrarily or merely as means to someone else’s inclinations). Thus while a given individual may have some rule of action (maxim) s/he is following, such as rule must be evaluated for it objective validity, i.e., whether it counts as a universal practical law. 18 Dworkin, Gerald. 1998. “Introduction.” In Gerald Dworkin, E.G. Frey, and Sissela Bok, (Ed.), Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide . ( pp. 3-5, at 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; italics added. 19 Ibid: 5 20 Kass, Leon (1989). Neither for Love nor Money: Why Doctors Must Not Kill, The Public Interest , 94, 5. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid: 28 23 Dworkin, op. cit.15 24 R.G. Frey, The Fear of a Slippery Slope, in Dworkin et al. 44 25 Ibid: 45 26 Ibid: 46 27 Immanuel Kant, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals , trans. Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. Retrieved March 08, 2017, fro m http://gopher.vt.edu:10010/02/107/5 a nd http://www.euthanasia.com/kant.html .