Assisted Suicide Arguments Against Euthanasia
The concept of intentionally ending a life through assisted suicide or euthanasia is a controversial topic. There are many moral, practical, and religious arguments either for or against these acts, making it difficult to find any easy answers to these issues. There are a variety of perspectives on euthanasia and assisted suicide that have developed and have been put into policies in some states or countries. This paper will explore what is meant by euthanasia and assisted suicide, some of the arguments for and against intentionally ending a life, and my own values and beliefs surrounding these issues. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are distinguished by who is acting to end the life and what is the intention of ending the life. Assisted suicide is when an individual deliberately chooses to end their own life, differentiated from the general act of suicide by the fact that a second individual is deliberately cooperating to provide the means. It is important to emphasize that the person herself is taking the action to end her life, whether the means are by firearm, injection, or medication. This means that not only is no one else’s finger on the trigger, but also assumes that no one has forced the person to take this action. Thus, the individual agency is a defining
…show more content…
characteristic of assisted suicide Intentionality is also explicit in assisted suicide, as both the individual taking the action and the one assisting are intending to end the life.
This means that the person providing the means knows that what they are providing is going to be used to end a life. For example, the assistance portion cannot be composed of selling a gun to an individual with no knowledge of what it will be used for. When the means of ending the life is a medication prescribed by a doctor for this purpose, the act becomes known as physician-assisted suicide. When the assistance consists of a friend providing a weapon or family member providing a place for the act to occur, it is referred to as assisted
suicide.
Euthanasia shares this characteristic of intentionality, where an individual’s life is purposely being ended in order to minimize physical or emotional suffering. The word ‘euthanasia’ comes from the Greek words for ‘good’ and ‘death’ demonstrating its well-meaning intentions. The issue of agency is what distinguishes euthanasia from assisted suicide. Euthanasia involves another individual taking the critical action that results in the outcome of the other individual’s death.
Often, euthanasia is specified as to whether it is considered voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia means that the person who’s life is to end has made it known that they want to die. They are both willing and able to make that assent known to others. If their will is unknown, but a second individual contributes to the ending of their life, it is called non-voluntary euthanasia. This often happens when an individual is in a coma or mentally incompetent in some way to make a decision and communicate it. Involuntary euthanasia is rare and sometimes considered not to be a true type of euthanasia because it is not associated with a ‘good death.’ It is called involuntary because the individual has made it known that it is not their will to end their life, but the second individual ends it anyway.
Another distinction in types of euthanasia concerns whether the means are active or passively committed. The active type involves doing an action to end the suffering, while passive involves withholding or withdrawing an action in order to end it. Legally, some are concerned about the implications of withdrawing treatment, as it taking an action to remove life-sustaining treatment and may represent the healthcare provider not doing their job. Others see withholding and withdrawing treatment as having little distinction because either way eliminates the intervention with the same intention. This brings up the issue of when an individual walks away from or refuses treatment. However, this is typically not considered to be an act of suicide or euthanasia unless the individual is doing it in order to die. This discussion of treatments to be withheld or withdrawn is often limited to ‘ordinary’ means of treatment, meaning deciding not to introduce or continue extraordinary treatment is not an act of euthanasia to most. There is still debate about whether use of an ‘ordinary’ treatment is a moral requirement, with those in favor of euthanasia stating that it is not required, while those against purport that not using the ordinary means is equivalent to intending to end the life.
Those who argue against euthanasia as an argument have a few arguments to support their position. They contend that a caregiver or physician’s role is to preserve life based on the premise that there is a goodness and sanctity fundamental to life. This value and commitment to the preservation of human life typically supersedes all other values to those with this position. Therefore, if a caregiver intentionally acts to end the life of another person, they are behaving immorally. Another issue for many who oppose euthanasia is the dangerous nature of allowing others to make a decision about ending another individual’s life. Known as the slippery slope argument, it contends that it will be too easy to allow people to end another individual’s life for other reasons and it will be difficult to stop this progression. Some bring up the unknown aspects of medical science as another reason to avoid the allowance of euthanasia. Because new medical treatments are always being developed and prognoses cannot be precise and perfect, no one can be certain enough that they should choose assisted suicide or euthanasia. There may be new options to limit suffering, cure disease, or extend life that cannot be accounted for in the decision making process. These beliefs support the position that euthanasia and assisted suicide are immoral actions that should not be taken by individuals or allowed by policies.
There are also a few strong arguments to support that euthanasia and assisted suicide are morally acceptable, at least in some cases. One aspect of support is based on the premise that suffering is evil and caregivers should take action to end suffering, which may mean intentionally ending a life. There is also a belief that sometimes suffering can result in positive outcomes, such as the example of physical exercise to improve health, which makes this argument less black-and-white. Thus, suffering may have to be judged on a case-by-case basis in order to find whether it should be valued or ended.
Related to the issue of suffering is the consideration for quality of life. This perspective responds to the opposing positions belief in the ultimate sanctity of life by countering that only a certain type of life is good and should be protected. This qualification of the ultimate sanctity of life typically is meant to designate specific types of life, like human life. For instance, usually people are not very defensive of the sanctity of life when it regards killing mosquitos or spiders. When it comes to human life, supporters of euthanasia or assisted suicide often assert that sometimes the humanity and dignity of an individual are reduced to the point where life is no longer of the quality or form that needs such guarded protection, such as life in a persistent vegetative state. Many also include unbearable suffering in this discussion as a factor impacting the quality and type of life they want to live.
Issues of autonomy often are used to support the choice to intentionally end one’s own life. American society emphasizes the importance of liberty and the rights of the individual. Thus, many argue that if someone is suffering or has a terminal illness and wants to end their own life, they should be allowed that choice for themselves. This argument is a bit trickier than some because it depends on the fact that someone’s autonomy is apparent. Physical or emotional pain may cloud one’s judgement to make a rational end-of-life decision. It also is made difficult by euthanasia and assisted suicide involving two people and each is autonomous. Thus, one person’s decision may come in conflict with another creating moral dilemmas.
My personal beliefs align more with this second position that supports making options like assisted suicide available options for those who want them. These are agonizing, painful decisions for anyone, but I do believe that policies should allow individuals to exercise their autonomy to choose what to do with their lives at the end. My position is motivated by my value for quality of life and limited suffering. I know that I personally would not want to live in a persistent vegetative state or undue pain with a terminal prognosis.
I also take this side because I believe the opposing viewpoint’s arguments are not strong enough to overpower people’s right to have that choice. It is true that there are new medical developments every day, but it is unlikely that a cure or significant treatment would suddenly be available that is a good fit or a turning point for someone with a limited prognosis. Also, the idea that society should not let anyone have the choice to intentionally end a life because it is a slippery slope that will progress to validating lots of other reasons to end lives is a perspective that puts too little faith in people. Humans are quite able to think and make rational decisions and there have always been policies that account for this quality. Thus, the slippery slope argument is not a valid reason to prevent people from making decisions about ending their lives. My value of giving people the right to choose this for themselves includes the right of clients or parents to refuse treatment when it no longer benefits them or what they want. I do reject any form of pressure or coercion for those who are dying to end their lives, like a doctor making a decision for a patient. However, it gets complicated when the individual is unable to make their wishes known or make a decision on their own. In the best case scenario, an individual has advance directives in place stating their wishes so that doctors or family members can still fulfill their wishes. If not, then a spouse or parent who is acting as a caregiver making medical decisions may be asked what actions to take or not take. If there is no clear answer either from the patient or the family, I do not believe the doctor should have the ultimate decision to end another’s life.
I think that policies regarding assisted suicide should be carefully crafted with certain features to ensure its proper usage. Recently, a law was passed in Washington D.C. allowing doctors to prescribe the medication used in assisted suicide, but there were a few concerns about what was missing from this law. For example, there appears to be no requirement for a mental health screening prior to receiving the prescription, which is a major concern when depression can cause someone to feel pressure to end their life.
My personal belief is that without coercion or other factors, like mental illness, interfering, people with terminal diseases do have the right to choose when to end their life. There are fundamental differences between assisted suicide and euthanasia and each needs to be defined and understood in order to understand the arguments for and against these options.
characteristic of assisted suicide Intentionality is also explicit in assisted suicide, as both the individual taking the action and the one assisting are intending to end the life.
This means that the person providing the means knows that what they are providing is going to be used to end a life. For example, the assistance portion cannot be composed of selling a gun to an individual with no knowledge of what it will be used for. When the means of ending the life is a medication prescribed by a doctor for this purpose, the act becomes known as physician-assisted suicide. When the assistance consists of a friend providing a weapon or family member providing a place for the act to occur, it is referred to as assisted
suicide.
Euthanasia shares this characteristic of intentionality, where an individual’s life is purposely being ended in order to minimize physical or emotional suffering. The word ‘euthanasia’ comes from the Greek words for ‘good’ and ‘death’ demonstrating its well-meaning intentions. The issue of agency is what distinguishes euthanasia from assisted suicide. Euthanasia involves another individual taking the critical action that results in the outcome of the other individual’s death.
Often, euthanasia is specified as to whether it is considered voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia means that the person who’s life is to end has made it known that they want to die. They are both willing and able to make that assent known to others. If their will is unknown, but a second individual contributes to the ending of their life, it is called non-voluntary euthanasia. This often happens when an individual is in a coma or mentally incompetent in some way to make a decision and communicate it. Involuntary euthanasia is rare and sometimes considered not to be a true type of euthanasia because it is not associated with a ‘good death.’ It is called involuntary because the individual has made it known that it is not their will to end their life, but the second individual ends it anyway.
Another distinction in types of euthanasia concerns whether the means are active or passively committed. The active type involves doing an action to end the suffering, while passive involves withholding or withdrawing an action in order to end it. Legally, some are concerned about the implications of withdrawing treatment, as it taking an action to remove life-sustaining treatment and may represent the healthcare provider not doing their job. Others see withholding and withdrawing treatment as having little distinction because either way eliminates the intervention with the same intention. This brings up the issue of when an individual walks away from or refuses treatment. However, this is typically not considered to be an act of suicide or euthanasia unless the individual is doing it in order to die. This discussion of treatments to be withheld or withdrawn is often limited to ‘ordinary’ means of treatment, meaning deciding not to introduce or continue extraordinary treatment is not an act of euthanasia to most. There is still debate about whether use of an ‘ordinary’ treatment is a moral requirement, with those in favor of euthanasia stating that it is not required, while those against purport that not using the ordinary means is equivalent to intending to end the life.
Those who argue against euthanasia as an argument have a few arguments to support their position. They contend that a caregiver or physician’s role is to preserve life based on the premise that there is a goodness and sanctity fundamental to life. This value and commitment to the preservation of human life typically supersedes all other values to those with this position. Therefore, if a caregiver intentionally acts to end the life of another person, they are behaving immorally. Another issue for many who oppose euthanasia is the dangerous nature of allowing others to make a decision about ending another individual’s life. Known as the slippery slope argument, it contends that it will be too easy to allow people to end another individual’s life for other reasons and it will be difficult to stop this progression. Some bring up the unknown aspects of medical science as another reason to avoid the allowance of euthanasia. Because new medical treatments are always being developed and prognoses cannot be precise and perfect, no one can be certain enough that they should choose assisted suicide or euthanasia. There may be new options to limit suffering, cure disease, or extend life that cannot be accounted for in the decision making process. These beliefs support the position that euthanasia and assisted suicide are immoral actions that should not be taken by individuals or allowed by policies.
There are also a few strong arguments to support that euthanasia and assisted suicide are morally acceptable, at least in some cases. One aspect of support is based on the premise that suffering is evil and caregivers should take action to end suffering, which may mean intentionally ending a life. There is also a belief that sometimes suffering can result in positive outcomes, such as the example of physical exercise to improve health, which makes this argument less black-and-white. Thus, suffering may have to be judged on a case-by-case basis in order to find whether it should be valued or ended.
Related to the issue of suffering is the consideration for quality of life. This perspective responds to the opposing positions belief in the ultimate sanctity of life by countering that only a certain type of life is good and should be protected. This qualification of the ultimate sanctity of life typically is meant to designate specific types of life, like human life. For instance, usually people are not very defensive of the sanctity of life when it regards killing mosquitos or spiders. When it comes to human life, supporters of euthanasia or assisted suicide often assert that sometimes the humanity and dignity of an individual are reduced to the point where life is no longer of the quality or form that needs such guarded protection, such as life in a persistent vegetative state. Many also include unbearable suffering in this discussion as a factor impacting the quality and type of life they want to live.
Issues of autonomy often are used to support the choice to intentionally end one’s own life. American society emphasizes the importance of liberty and the rights of the individual. Thus, many argue that if someone is suffering or has a terminal illness and wants to end their own life, they should be allowed that choice for themselves. This argument is a bit trickier than some because it depends on the fact that someone’s autonomy is apparent. Physical or emotional pain may cloud one’s judgement to make a rational end-of-life decision. It also is made difficult by euthanasia and assisted suicide involving two people and each is autonomous. Thus, one person’s decision may come in conflict with another creating moral dilemmas.
My personal beliefs align more with this second position that supports making options like assisted suicide available options for those who want them. These are agonizing, painful decisions for anyone, but I do believe that policies should allow individuals to exercise their autonomy to choose what to do with their lives at the end. My position is motivated by my value for quality of life and limited suffering. I know that I personally would not want to live in a persistent vegetative state or undue pain with a terminal prognosis.
I also take this side because I believe the opposing viewpoint’s arguments are not strong enough to overpower people’s right to have that choice. It is true that there are new medical developments every day, but it is unlikely that a cure or significant treatment would suddenly be available that is a good fit or a turning point for someone with a limited prognosis. Also, the idea that society should not let anyone have the choice to intentionally end a life because it is a slippery slope that will progress to validating lots of other reasons to end lives is a perspective that puts too little faith in people. Humans are quite able to think and make rational decisions and there have always been policies that account for this quality. Thus, the slippery slope argument is not a valid reason to prevent people from making decisions about ending their lives. My value of giving people the right to choose this for themselves includes the right of clients or parents to refuse treatment when it no longer benefits them or what they want. I do reject any form of pressure or coercion for those who are dying to end their lives, like a doctor making a decision for a patient. However, it gets complicated when the individual is unable to make their wishes known or make a decision on their own. In the best case scenario, an individual has advance directives in place stating their wishes so that doctors or family members can still fulfill their wishes. If not, then a spouse or parent who is acting as a caregiver making medical decisions may be asked what actions to take or not take. If there is no clear answer either from the patient or the family, I do not believe the doctor should have the ultimate decision to end another’s life.
I think that policies regarding assisted suicide should be carefully crafted with certain features to ensure its proper usage. Recently, a law was passed in Washington D.C. allowing doctors to prescribe the medication used in assisted suicide, but there were a few concerns about what was missing from this law. For example, there appears to be no requirement for a mental health screening prior to receiving the prescription, which is a major concern when depression can cause someone to feel pressure to end their life.
My personal belief is that without coercion or other factors, like mental illness, interfering, people with terminal diseases do have the right to choose when to end their life. There are fundamental differences between assisted suicide and euthanasia and each needs to be defined and understood in order to understand the arguments for and against these options.