Euthanasia May Be Ethically Justified Analysis
Customize Your Death: Why Some Forms of Euthanasia may be Ethically Justified
Out of the study of religion, science and philosophy arise questions like, “who owns our lives?” or more strikingly, “can we and should we be allowed to take our own lives?” At first thought, suicide springs to mind, and the scenes of despair, depression and distress follow. Then, one might ask why voluntary death is associated with gloom when it may not necessarily be true. Indeed, to some people it is quite the opposite; death brings an end to all the suffering and pain of the world. They are the people who reason that when death is imminent we should have a choice to die within our own arrangements. They talk of euthanasia. However, positions on the practice …show more content…
of euthanasia are extremely controversial with opinions divided on how life should be valued. Regardless, there are numerous ethical implications to be weighed before even considering a conduct.
Because euthanasia has been a topic of debate in technical disciplines like law, medicine and politics, clear distinction between the variants of the practice is required. Euthanasia, in general, means an intentional death to relieve pain and suffering. It is classified in terms of consent and activity. Under consent, euthanasia is further divided into voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is practiced upon request of the patient, non-voluntary on grounds of compassion and without the availability of patient consent, and involuntary against the interest of the patient. Likewise, based on activity, active euthanasia refers to the practice of killing using a deadly medication, whereas passive euthanasia means killing due to suspension of life-prolonging treatments. Furthermore, physician assisted suicide is what proponents like to call euthanasia administered by patients themselves after consultation and prescription from a physician (Humphry). It is also helpful to know about the historic context of the issue of euthanasia to better understand the current developments. The debate of euthanasia in the US has surfaced ever since bioethicists raised questions about end-of-life decisions. Institutions like the Hastings Center, founded in 1969 in New York, were the pioneers in bringing up discussions on the living will, objection to treatment, and terminal sedation among others. Then, in 1976, California became the first state to permit terminally ill patients to “authorize withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatments” only to be followed by eight other states. The 1990’s saw emergence of a man who is infamously dubbed Dr. Death. Dr. Kervokian is so called because he assisted 130 patients to die. He was later convicted of second degree murder. More crucially, the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the right to die is unconstitutional, but encouraged states to continue debating. Since then, Oregon, Washington, Montana and most recently Vermont have passed bills supporting physician assisted suicide. In all other states, all forms of euthanasia are illegal (Karaim 459).
With only four states in the US legalizing physician assisted suicide, it is safe to say that the contemporary practice is predominantly intolerable to euthanasia. This intolerance is backed by ethical reasoning of its own. Firstly, opponents argue that the practice of euthanasia, if allowed, will conflict the ethical right of a person’s autonomy in life. Involuntary and Non-voluntary euthanasia will allow killing of persons without their consent, thus disregarding the right to make one’s own decision. There is an understandable disagreement on whether a person himself can consent to his death or not, but it is near unanimously believed that no other being should be allowed to decide on the life of a person. Therefore, by prohibiting euthanasia, the current practice ensures non-voluntary and involuntary deaths do not take place and the moral principle of autonomy in life is safeguarded (Terry).
Nevertheless, the flaw in the practice is conspicuous with voluntary euthanasia being completely discounted.
Pursuing the topic of voluntary euthanasia though, brings us to the same old, dead end theme of whether a person should have the right to terminate his life or not. So, we might as well take a stance here. If an individual has a right to self-determination in all events of his life, then death is only an ordinary event (Fenigsen 75). It is not a coincidence that the right to self-determination happens to be recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In addition, our ethics tinted glasses will confirm this view. The fundamental rule of morality allows us to do anything that does not hamper the moral rights of other beings. That ending clause of protecting the moral rights of other beings adds a new dimension to our problem, but a brief interrogation will help us identify the candidates of “other beings.” The family of the person and his physicians are the only plausible beings whose moral rights may be at stake due to euthanasia. But as far as the family is concerned, death of a loved one will always bring emotional distress and heartache. So, it is highly advisable that the person does not put his family through the anguish of death, for his self-interest. However, under circumstances that death is imminent, and killing will only help the patient, voluntary death can only be good. Even for the family, euthanasia will come as a blessing in disguise—an arranged death of a loved one is arguably less traumatizing than an unexpected
one.
As for the patient’s physicians, it is always a question of if their beliefs allow them to administer death to patients. And like all questions within the realm of euthanasia, there is no single answer to it. It is, however, only sensible to distance physicians from the appalling act of death, for whatever their belief, they can only be so impervious to the responsibility of death. Then, there is the historic solemn promise that physicians make to themselves, to “never give a deadly drug to anybody who [asks] for it [or] make a suggestion to this effect” (Karaim 455). It is called the Hippocratic Oath, and it has been practiced since the days of the father of western medicine, Hippocrates of fifth century BC. Opponents of euthanasia use the oath as ammunition to remind people how implicitly the ethics of medicine opposes physicians to aid in suicide, and rightly so. But what most people fail to notice is that the same oath urges physicians to “follow [a] system of regimen which, according to [their] ability and judgment,” is beneficial to their patients (Gill). So, it all boils down to whether the regimen is beneficial to a patient or not.
We now face a dilemma of deciding if and when our regimen of death may be beneficial to patients. But as difficult as this task may sound at first, it is feasible. First, if patients’ deaths are imminent, which advanced disease prognosis can determine, planned death can only return control of their lives to themselves. By that we mean patients will have an opportunity to die at their own will and ironically take satisfaction in it. Next, for patients of terminal pain, whose only solution to relieving symptoms is palliative sedation, death cannot come any faster. Such patients may find it more beneficial to die than to suffer the symptoms of their ailment or reside in terminal sedation before eventual death. Finally, patients of chronic psychological disorders like Alzheimer’s disease live their later lives with diminished mental activity and under extensive care. These patients may consider their lives without mental capacity undignified; Sir Terry Pratchett comes to mind. The famous English novelist was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease in 2007, and after experiencing short-term memory losses he now dictates to his assistant to record and organize his fleeting thoughts. In 2011, he came up with a documentary titled “Terry Pratchett: Choosing to Die,” where he explores his opportunities to die before his disease takes over. In the documentary, Pratchett reasons that his life will be worthless when he can no longer write books and at such point he may want to die. He represents the sentiments of patients who wish to live life only “as long as [they] can squeeze the juice out of it.” And perhaps that sentiment is justified considering dignity in life is a value that everyone should look to uphold, more so when terminal diseases look to debilitate patients’ physical and psychological conditions by the day. The purpose of living becomes hard to find, and some will argue the patients are only biologically living. All other definitions of life will most likely pronounce them dead.
After all the tedium of going through the algorithms of ethics, we are finally in a position to propose a conduct for euthanasia. To regurgitate, the right to self-determination along with the moral freedom of activity hands the ownership of our lives to us. Also, the historic ethics of medicine does not object to death if it is to our benefit. Further, our death can only be beneficial to us when we stand at bay to it, and when life brings no more than suffering and indignity. Then, in a flowchart-like manner, all these pieces point to one and only one recognizable practice: physician assisted suicide. As mentioned earlier, physician assisted suicide, although differentiated from euthanasia, allows people to kill themselves at the prescription of a physician. Approving all the aforementioned criteria, this practice brings unlimited benefits to the person and the society alike. Patients of terminal diseases will be able to bring an end to their miserable lives by their own decision and that without jeopardizing the moral rights of the concerned—a redundant contention by now. On the flipside, the society will also benefit, by saving time, money and resources occupied in vainly prolonging the life of the person. Needless to say, these resources can be better spent on other aspects of the society. Additionally, the practice of physician assisted suicide has silenced critics by successful existence in the US states of Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Vermont. Particularly, Oregon’s “Death with Dignity Act” of 1994 has sustained fifteen years of abuse-free practice of assisted suicide. The fact that there have been no reported assisted suicides in Oregon tells us that the practice has stood the test of time (Karaim 455, 465).
Despite our utmost efforts to explore the ethical grounds of euthanasia, the topic remains largely vexing. Every disease and every patient is uniquely different to another. We must also acknowledge, like in any other ethical argument, the differences in principles and values that different people may have. Moreover, the assumptions made in our discussion are always subject to dissent. Even so, the proposed conduct of assisted suicide is worth considering, given the success it has had in limited states. The range of benefits that this conduct confers is also exciting to say the least. Most importantly, the practice of assisted suicide is likely to open doors for a much broader conduct of euthanasia in the future.
Works Cited
Fenigsen, Richard. "Other People 's Lives: Reflections On Medicine, Ethics, And Euthanasia. Part Two: Medicine Versus Euthanasia." Issues In Law & Medicine 28.1 (2012): 71-87. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 Dec. 2013.
Gill, Nancy S. "Is ‘First Do No Harm’ From the Hippocratic Oath? Myth vs Fact." Classical History. About.com, n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2013.
Humphry, Derek. "Definitions of Euthanasia." Assisted Suicide. Euthanasia Research & Guidance Organization, 19 Jan. 2006. Web. 02 Dec. 2013.
Karaim, Reed. "Assisted Suicide." CQ Researcher 17 May 2013: 449-72. Web. 2 Dec. 2013.
Terry Pratchett: Choosing to Die. Dir. Charlie Russell. Perf. Terry Pratchett. Top Documentary Films. TDF, n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2013.
Out of the study of religion, science and philosophy arise questions like, “who owns our lives?” or more strikingly, “can we and should we be allowed to take our own lives?” At first thought, suicide springs to mind, and the scenes of despair, depression and distress follow. Then, one might ask why voluntary death is associated with gloom when it may not necessarily be true. Indeed, to some people it is quite the opposite; death brings an end to all the suffering and pain of the world. They are the people who reason that when death is imminent we should have a choice to die within our own arrangements. They talk of euthanasia. However, positions on the practice …show more content…
of euthanasia are extremely controversial with opinions divided on how life should be valued. Regardless, there are numerous ethical implications to be weighed before even considering a conduct.
Because euthanasia has been a topic of debate in technical disciplines like law, medicine and politics, clear distinction between the variants of the practice is required. Euthanasia, in general, means an intentional death to relieve pain and suffering. It is classified in terms of consent and activity. Under consent, euthanasia is further divided into voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is practiced upon request of the patient, non-voluntary on grounds of compassion and without the availability of patient consent, and involuntary against the interest of the patient. Likewise, based on activity, active euthanasia refers to the practice of killing using a deadly medication, whereas passive euthanasia means killing due to suspension of life-prolonging treatments. Furthermore, physician assisted suicide is what proponents like to call euthanasia administered by patients themselves after consultation and prescription from a physician (Humphry). It is also helpful to know about the historic context of the issue of euthanasia to better understand the current developments. The debate of euthanasia in the US has surfaced ever since bioethicists raised questions about end-of-life decisions. Institutions like the Hastings Center, founded in 1969 in New York, were the pioneers in bringing up discussions on the living will, objection to treatment, and terminal sedation among others. Then, in 1976, California became the first state to permit terminally ill patients to “authorize withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatments” only to be followed by eight other states. The 1990’s saw emergence of a man who is infamously dubbed Dr. Death. Dr. Kervokian is so called because he assisted 130 patients to die. He was later convicted of second degree murder. More crucially, the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the right to die is unconstitutional, but encouraged states to continue debating. Since then, Oregon, Washington, Montana and most recently Vermont have passed bills supporting physician assisted suicide. In all other states, all forms of euthanasia are illegal (Karaim 459).
With only four states in the US legalizing physician assisted suicide, it is safe to say that the contemporary practice is predominantly intolerable to euthanasia. This intolerance is backed by ethical reasoning of its own. Firstly, opponents argue that the practice of euthanasia, if allowed, will conflict the ethical right of a person’s autonomy in life. Involuntary and Non-voluntary euthanasia will allow killing of persons without their consent, thus disregarding the right to make one’s own decision. There is an understandable disagreement on whether a person himself can consent to his death or not, but it is near unanimously believed that no other being should be allowed to decide on the life of a person. Therefore, by prohibiting euthanasia, the current practice ensures non-voluntary and involuntary deaths do not take place and the moral principle of autonomy in life is safeguarded (Terry).
Nevertheless, the flaw in the practice is conspicuous with voluntary euthanasia being completely discounted.
Pursuing the topic of voluntary euthanasia though, brings us to the same old, dead end theme of whether a person should have the right to terminate his life or not. So, we might as well take a stance here. If an individual has a right to self-determination in all events of his life, then death is only an ordinary event (Fenigsen 75). It is not a coincidence that the right to self-determination happens to be recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In addition, our ethics tinted glasses will confirm this view. The fundamental rule of morality allows us to do anything that does not hamper the moral rights of other beings. That ending clause of protecting the moral rights of other beings adds a new dimension to our problem, but a brief interrogation will help us identify the candidates of “other beings.” The family of the person and his physicians are the only plausible beings whose moral rights may be at stake due to euthanasia. But as far as the family is concerned, death of a loved one will always bring emotional distress and heartache. So, it is highly advisable that the person does not put his family through the anguish of death, for his self-interest. However, under circumstances that death is imminent, and killing will only help the patient, voluntary death can only be good. Even for the family, euthanasia will come as a blessing in disguise—an arranged death of a loved one is arguably less traumatizing than an unexpected
one.
As for the patient’s physicians, it is always a question of if their beliefs allow them to administer death to patients. And like all questions within the realm of euthanasia, there is no single answer to it. It is, however, only sensible to distance physicians from the appalling act of death, for whatever their belief, they can only be so impervious to the responsibility of death. Then, there is the historic solemn promise that physicians make to themselves, to “never give a deadly drug to anybody who [asks] for it [or] make a suggestion to this effect” (Karaim 455). It is called the Hippocratic Oath, and it has been practiced since the days of the father of western medicine, Hippocrates of fifth century BC. Opponents of euthanasia use the oath as ammunition to remind people how implicitly the ethics of medicine opposes physicians to aid in suicide, and rightly so. But what most people fail to notice is that the same oath urges physicians to “follow [a] system of regimen which, according to [their] ability and judgment,” is beneficial to their patients (Gill). So, it all boils down to whether the regimen is beneficial to a patient or not.
We now face a dilemma of deciding if and when our regimen of death may be beneficial to patients. But as difficult as this task may sound at first, it is feasible. First, if patients’ deaths are imminent, which advanced disease prognosis can determine, planned death can only return control of their lives to themselves. By that we mean patients will have an opportunity to die at their own will and ironically take satisfaction in it. Next, for patients of terminal pain, whose only solution to relieving symptoms is palliative sedation, death cannot come any faster. Such patients may find it more beneficial to die than to suffer the symptoms of their ailment or reside in terminal sedation before eventual death. Finally, patients of chronic psychological disorders like Alzheimer’s disease live their later lives with diminished mental activity and under extensive care. These patients may consider their lives without mental capacity undignified; Sir Terry Pratchett comes to mind. The famous English novelist was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease in 2007, and after experiencing short-term memory losses he now dictates to his assistant to record and organize his fleeting thoughts. In 2011, he came up with a documentary titled “Terry Pratchett: Choosing to Die,” where he explores his opportunities to die before his disease takes over. In the documentary, Pratchett reasons that his life will be worthless when he can no longer write books and at such point he may want to die. He represents the sentiments of patients who wish to live life only “as long as [they] can squeeze the juice out of it.” And perhaps that sentiment is justified considering dignity in life is a value that everyone should look to uphold, more so when terminal diseases look to debilitate patients’ physical and psychological conditions by the day. The purpose of living becomes hard to find, and some will argue the patients are only biologically living. All other definitions of life will most likely pronounce them dead.
After all the tedium of going through the algorithms of ethics, we are finally in a position to propose a conduct for euthanasia. To regurgitate, the right to self-determination along with the moral freedom of activity hands the ownership of our lives to us. Also, the historic ethics of medicine does not object to death if it is to our benefit. Further, our death can only be beneficial to us when we stand at bay to it, and when life brings no more than suffering and indignity. Then, in a flowchart-like manner, all these pieces point to one and only one recognizable practice: physician assisted suicide. As mentioned earlier, physician assisted suicide, although differentiated from euthanasia, allows people to kill themselves at the prescription of a physician. Approving all the aforementioned criteria, this practice brings unlimited benefits to the person and the society alike. Patients of terminal diseases will be able to bring an end to their miserable lives by their own decision and that without jeopardizing the moral rights of the concerned—a redundant contention by now. On the flipside, the society will also benefit, by saving time, money and resources occupied in vainly prolonging the life of the person. Needless to say, these resources can be better spent on other aspects of the society. Additionally, the practice of physician assisted suicide has silenced critics by successful existence in the US states of Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Vermont. Particularly, Oregon’s “Death with Dignity Act” of 1994 has sustained fifteen years of abuse-free practice of assisted suicide. The fact that there have been no reported assisted suicides in Oregon tells us that the practice has stood the test of time (Karaim 455, 465).
Despite our utmost efforts to explore the ethical grounds of euthanasia, the topic remains largely vexing. Every disease and every patient is uniquely different to another. We must also acknowledge, like in any other ethical argument, the differences in principles and values that different people may have. Moreover, the assumptions made in our discussion are always subject to dissent. Even so, the proposed conduct of assisted suicide is worth considering, given the success it has had in limited states. The range of benefits that this conduct confers is also exciting to say the least. Most importantly, the practice of assisted suicide is likely to open doors for a much broader conduct of euthanasia in the future.
Works Cited
Fenigsen, Richard. "Other People 's Lives: Reflections On Medicine, Ethics, And Euthanasia. Part Two: Medicine Versus Euthanasia." Issues In Law & Medicine 28.1 (2012): 71-87. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 Dec. 2013.
Gill, Nancy S. "Is ‘First Do No Harm’ From the Hippocratic Oath? Myth vs Fact." Classical History. About.com, n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2013.
Humphry, Derek. "Definitions of Euthanasia." Assisted Suicide. Euthanasia Research & Guidance Organization, 19 Jan. 2006. Web. 02 Dec. 2013.
Karaim, Reed. "Assisted Suicide." CQ Researcher 17 May 2013: 449-72. Web. 2 Dec. 2013.
Terry Pratchett: Choosing to Die. Dir. Charlie Russell. Perf. Terry Pratchett. Top Documentary Films. TDF, n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2013.