Voluntary Active Euthanasia Analysis

Daniel Brock rationalizes his claim that voluntary active euthanasia is morally permissible with the use of two moral values. According to Brock, the moral values of self-determination and well-being support voluntary active euthanasia. As defined and detailed thoroughly in Brock’s argument on page 11 of his paper “Voluntary Active Euthanasia”, self-determination is equal to the ability to decide what decisions in and about your life will coincide with your concept of a good life, and well-being is equal to being content with your life. The formal argument that Brock formulates is reliant on these two moral values. The argument is as follows: “1. The values of patient self-determination and well-being support VAE, 2. So there is a good moral
reason in favor of VAE, 3. There are no serious moral reasons against VAE, 4. If there is a good moral reason to be in favor of VAE and no serious moral reasons against VAE, then VAE is morally permissible, 5. So VAE is morally permissible” (PHIL 140 Fall 2015, class slides). The argument Brock makes in favor of voluntary active euthanasia is very simple to follow.
Essentially, he states that voluntary active euthanasia is morally permissible because there are no serious moral reasons to object to the action. If there were serious moral reasons against it, then the entire argument would not be valid. Although the argument relies heavily on the principle moral values of self-determination and well-being, these moral values only provide support for the argument and do not provide the substance of the argument. The validity of the argument arises from the premises that suggest that there are good moral reasons for voluntary active euthanasia and no serious moral reasons against
it. Although Brock’s argument is mostly plausible, I believe that his fifth premise, that voluntary active euthanasia is morally permissible, is false.
My objection to his argument is as follows: voluntary active euthanasia is not only the deliberate killing of an innocent person, but the purposeful lack of effort of physicians to aid the ill patients, which violates the Hippocratic Oath, making the action of voluntary active euthanasia morally impermissible. Therefore, voluntary active euthanasia is morally impermissible and Brock’s fifth premise is false. Voluntary active euthanasia is not a permissible treatment option with the substantial amount of technology and ever-increasing amounts of cures for illnesses. A physician who would permit voluntary active euthanasia would have failed to utilize all the resources he/she has in their possession to keep the patient alive and cure them. This failure violates the required Hippocratic Oath that physicians must take stating that they will always uphold ethical standards. Essentially, they swear to “first do no harm” (Tyson). The deliberate killing of an innocent person causes harm. Physicians take an oath that states it is morally impermissible to do harm to a patient, therefore voluntary active euthanasia is morally impermissible. Aside from the oath, the growth of medicine and technology has greatly increased as a result of research studies. There is barely any reason nowadays that anyone should have to suffer such great pain
that they would want to end their life. A proponent of Brock could refute my objection on the basis of its reliance on the physician’s actions and not the patient’s desires. Brock’s argument has emphasis on the support given by the moral values of self-determination and well-being. Both of these values are under the sole discretion of the patient, especially self-determination. Brock believes that the patient has the right to a make the decisions for their life to illustrate their concept of a good life. The proponent could easily say that if the patient decides they want to die and have reason to do such, and then the voluntary active euthanasia is morally permissible. The morally permissibility of the action would force the physician to comply with the decision of the patient regardless of the numerous amounts of other possible treatments the physician could administer. The patient has the moral value of self-determination, and because of that, they will override the thoughts and desires of the physician. In conclusion, Daniel Brock presents an argument that favors voluntary active euthanasia being morally permissible, which is supported by the moral values of self-determination and well-being. However, his argument can be refuted with the Hippocratic oath, which explains how voluntary active euthanasia is impermissible.