Euthanasia and its Moral Permissibility
Euthanasia refers to physician-induced suicide (Chan 28). Exploring the moral permissibility of euthanasia by giving justifiable arguments and illustrations to demonstrate situations in which euthanasia should be acceptable will be the focus of this paper. The arguments will be centered on the appropriate use of euthanasia, impact of euthanasia on the quality of life as well as the rights of the individual.
Support for Euthanasia
I will also argue by giving reasons that support the use of physician-induced suicide as it ends the suffering to the person. Besides, I will compare the euthanisation of animals to that of human beings. On the other hand, I will also present the opinions and thoughts of individuals who oppose physician-induced suicide terming it as immorality. Some of the opponents of euthanasia cite reasons that suggest the use of alternatives to euthanasia. The arguments also highlight that the role of physicians will be corrupted as well as the fear of the individual being abused (Quill 598). In the end, I will give a response to avert these claims by elaborating more on the moral permissibility of euthanasia; hence the support of euthanasia.
Variations of Euthanasia
In euthanasia, the physicians give a toxic dose of the drugs if the patient requests for assisted suicide or in other cases the physician gives the toxic dose of the medication directly to the patient in what is known as voluntary active physician-induced suicide (Kahane 555). In both cases, euthanasia is morally permissible and requires legalisation. Physician-induced suicide can be considered as non-voluntary, involuntary or voluntary. Non-voluntary euthanasia refers to assisted suicide in a scenario where the patient is not in a position to provide the consent. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted without approval or consent from the patient while voluntary euthanasia occurs upon the request by the patient.
Active vs Passive Euthanasia
Furthermore, euthanasia can be classified as active or passive. Active euthanasia is deliberate in that the act is intentional whereas passive euthanasia is where the physician deliberately withholds treatment resulting in the loss of life of the patient (Nathan 4). Passive euthanasia is acceptable and is regarded as morally permissible since it is believed that death occurs by itself. Therefore, passive euthanasia is not debatable. It is legal and ethical. Voluntary active euthanasia is surrounded by controversies and has raised a lot of debates.
Historical Perspectives
Voluntary active euthanasia can be traced to the time when Plato advised that sick people should be left to die (Walthour 437). Hindu people left their sick people at Ganges River whereas elderly Eskimos went to cold places when they became a burden to the society. The idea of euthanasia is not recent since it occurred several years ago when human beings became aware of suffering as well as death.
Appropriate Use of Euthanasia
One of the arguments that will support the idea that euthanasia should be morally permissible is the appropriate use of euthanasia. Euthanasia may not be legal in all states, but some areas such as Washington and Oregon allow physician-assisted suicide. In these areas, the diagnosis of a terminally ill individual is reported as having less than six months to live. Patients are required to present their request twice for a lethal dose of medication but within a time difference of two weeks. The physician making the prescription has to deliberate on the mental capability of the patient. The law also law stipulates that the patient can only take the lethal dose. In this case, the witnesses should include two impartial individuals. This scenario illustrates how the situation would be if euthanasia is legalised in other areas. The legalisation of euthanasia in Oregon upon the enactment of Death with Dignity Act serves a good example to justify the use of euthanasia in terminally ill patients. In fact, euthanasia should be morally permissible in that the number of people making requests for a lethal prescription is rising. Besides, seventy people were prescribed lethal doses in Washington in 2011 (Robinson 7). In the two states, euthanasia is slowly gaining popularity. However, about a third of the patients fail to take the drugs after being prescribed. It is important to note that physician-assisted suicide depicts what has been happening in the dark for several years.
Quality of Life and Human Dignity
The second reason which argues in favor of euthanasia is the fact that life is all about quality living (Kahane 555). Life is not just about brain functioning or breathing as defined by the medical experts. There is no true living if suffering and hopelessness compound the life. Human existence is dictated by the ability of an individual to control themselves in a manner that they do not cause harm to other people. The situation changes when the person can no longer do things for themselves and thus become dependent on others. The essential things such as bathing, eating or engaging in exercises are crucial for the existence of human beings. The loss of autonomy downplays the sense of human dignity if the individual cannot do things on his or her own. I do not agree with people who think that such embarrassing circumstances should just be taken as part of the process of aging. The patients with chronic or terminal illnesses do not show such feelings. Public Health Division of Oregon has noted that majority of patients cite the loss of autonomy, inability to enjoy activities as well as loss of human dignity to be their concerns regarding the end of life.
Individual Human Rights and Freedom
Another reason which supports the use of euthanasia is the individual human rights (Kaczor 58). Each person has the right to control whatever happens to him or her and whatever he or she wishes to do. Following this kind of thought, it should, therefore, be common knowledge that individuals suffering from terminal conditions as well as chronic diseases should be given the right to control their life by choosing when and how to die. In the society, there are critical values which are highly regarded. Some of the values which are protected in many instances include autonomy, privacy as well as freedom. These rights should be applied since death is part of the vital moments in the life of an individual. This argument is valid when it comes to euthanasia.
Utilitarian Approach and Reducing Suffering
Furthermore, the moral permissibility of euthanasia can be argued from utilitarian argument which is concerned about less suffering. In chronic and terminal illnesses, the patients experience a lot of pain and untold suffering (Robinson 7). The utilitarian approach is about how happiness should be increased whereas suffering should be lessened. The whole idea is not concerned with pleasing God or observing the rules of the society. The argument is that euthanasia should be morally permissible in that it reduces the degree of suffering and misery to all people involved in the care of the patients. The people who are stressed in patient care include caregivers, the friends as well as the family members. The utilitarian approach has some challenges in that it may argue that it is not immoral as long as the individual was not aware and hence no suffering will be incurred.
Preserving Individual Rights and Maintaining Justice
The states which legalised euthanasia protected the individual rights maintained justice as well as freedom (Quill 598). The fact that patients are not allowed to decide on their fate is denying them the freedom to control their life. According to utilitarian principle, if the patient is just left to die slowly, then the extent of suffering is increased for all the people involved. In my view, I support a moderate utilitarian approach where euthanasia is conducted in just a manner according to the wishes of the patient. Therefore, suffering will be alleviated.
Comparison between Animal Euthanasia and Human Euthanasia
The least important reason to support my argument for the legalisation of euthanasia is the comparison between animal euthanasia and human euthanasia (Nathan 4). Animals are euthanised due to pain and suffering. Humans are aware that aging will bring about problems to animals. Even though humans love pets, euthanasia is the best option to be taken. It would be natural if the same animal begs or gives consent for death. Some individuals argue that humans are superior and thus they cannot be compared to animals in matters of life, mental capacity or morality. The primary issue is that both are sentient beings even though they are not equals. Since there are sentient beings, equality should prevail in suffering. Voluntary euthanasia is subject to the request by the patient due to suffering and pain.
Opposition to Euthanasia
On the other hand, opponents of euthanasia posit argue that it cannot be morally acceptable since it taints the image of a physician. The argument that opponents provide is that there is a difference between direct involvement in ending the life of a patient and withdrawing treatment in an attempt to end the life of a patient in the long run (Kamm 40). If the patient is allowed to die due to the disease, the opponents view it as a natural cause of death. These critics argue that if the physician is directly involved in ending the life of a person, then the role of a doctor will be corrupted and the trust between patients and physicians will be violated.
The main justification provided is the Hippocratic Oath. My response to this objection is that medicine has advanced and that the physician always keeps the interest of the patient at the forefront. If more harm is created by keeping the patient alive, then the best way is to let the patient die. Another reason given by opponents is that legalisation of euthanasia can provide room for relatives to maliciously work toward ending the lives of their patients for purposes of inheritance. The response to these critics is that the information provided by Oregon does not show issues of abuse. Finally, the opponents also argue that there are alternatives to euthanasia which include palliative sedation. In response to this assertion, alternative care is also effective. However, pain medication is subject to regulation, and at times the dosage may not be effective since increasing the dosage implies raising the chances for adverse effects.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the discussion focused on the moral permissibility of euthanasia. The reasons provided to support moral acceptability of physician-induced suicide include the need to reduce suffering for the patient and the family, patient autonomy, individual rights of the patient, granting the patient freedom as well as human dignity.\u00a0 The terminally ill patient should be allowed to pass on peacefully rather than undergoing suffering. However, the critics who argue against euthanasia claim that there are alternatives to euthanasia, the risk of abuse of the patient, and that humans cannot be killed just like animals.
Works cited
Chan, Ho Mun, and Chun Yan Tse. "The case of Ah Bun: euthanasia and other alternatives." Ethical Dilemmas in Public Policy. Springer, Singapore, 2016. 23-38.
Quill, Timothy E., Robert M. Arnold, and Stuart J. Youngner. "Physician-Assisted Suicide: Finding a Path Forward in a Changing Legal Environment." Annals of internal medicine167.8 (2017): 597-598.
Kaczor, Christopher. "Against euthanasia for children: a response to Bovens." Journal of medical ethics 42.1 (2016): 57-58.
Kahane, Guy. "Sidetracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial moral dilemmas tell us little (or nothing) about utilitarian judgment." Social neuroscience 10.5 (2015): 551-560.
Kamm, Frances M. "Physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, and intending death." Physician assisted suicide. Routledge, 2015. 28-62.
Nathan, Rae. "Is Euthanasia Morally Permissible? Why or Why Not?." Sound Decisions: An Undergraduate Bioethics Journal 1.1 (2015): 4.
Robinson, Ian. "Why you should vote to legalise Euthanasia, even if you oppose it yourself: A defence of personal choice." Australian Rationalist, The 106 (2017): 7.
Walthour, Melanie. "Competently, Knowingly, and Voluntarily Dying with Dignity: Why States That Allow Defendants to Volunteer for Execution Should Allow Terminally Ill Patients to Die in a Dignified and Humane Manner." Ariz. Summit L. Rev.9 (2016): 437.
