Euthanasia Essay, Research Paper

As with all moral problems, a decision has to be made as to whether the action is a just one or not. An objective perspective must be taken to see the bigger -universal- picture. This is quite difficult when dealing with Biomedical Ethical problems, as issues like abortion and euthanasia evoke some strong emotions. Emotions may be said to cloud our reason and judgement and as a philosopher, these are the most important tools, but it is also important to follow your heart, as it usually has the right solution to ethical problems. Using both reason and emotion, I will throw myself into the can of worms that is Euthanasia.

Euthanasia is currently in the news with the Dutch Parliament passing a Bill to legalise mercy killings The Guardian, Wed.29th Nov. 2000.For an age old practice, why is Euthanasia considered to be such a contemporary moral issue? In the Western World, diseases such as small pox, tuberculosis, malaria, pneumonia, polio, influenza and measles have been kept under control by modern medicines. Diseases such as these rarely cause death in otherwise healthy individuals who are given the proper treatment. Life expectancy has also increased to almost 75 years old in some countries. Yet a change in modern day lifestyles has lead to other diseases such as heart disease, adult onset diabetes, cancers and AIDS. With these new diseases, suffering is often more prolonged and treatment is frequently quite painful. Also as people live longer lives, diseases of the aged have become increasingly prevalent. More people are now suffering from senile dementia and Alzheimer s disease. These diseases ruin the mind while preserving the body, allowing life to continue long after any quality that life might have is gone. Having set the social scene that has roused and renewed the public debate about Euthanasia, I will, in this essay, explain what is meant by Euthanasia, discuss the ethics of Euthanasia by examining both sides of the debate and by applying some ethical theories to the problem.

What is Euthanasia?

It comes from the Greek word thanatos meaning death and along with the prefix eu meaning well or easily it can be defined as a gentle or easy death. Euthanasia has also been described as “mercy killing”. Euthanasia is .voluntary death in cases of painful and incurable diseases (Encyclopedia Britannica). It is .the act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions of diseases (Wolhandler, 1984, p.363).

Euthanasia has been subdivided into categories in order to aid clarification. It can be divided into voluntary – involuntary and active passive.

Voluntary Euthanasia is euthanasia that is provided to a competent person on his/her informed request. (Non-voluntary euthanasia is the provision of euthanasia to an incompetent person according to a surrogate s decision.) In voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia performed without a competent persons consent (CEJA, 1992, p.2230). Active euthanasia is the administration of lethal drugs, or the otherwise actual killing of a patient by another person. Passive euthanasia is letting the patient die i.e. no medical interference as such, or the with-drawl of medical assistance. Is there a moral difference between the two? Both cause the death of the patient, on by an action, the other by in-action. The result remains the same in both circumstances therefore, even the in-action has the same moral controversy hanging over its head.

The movement to legalise active euthanasia has existed for quite some time but this contentious issue has only been passed by law by one Government the Dutch. (It has yet to be agreed upon by the Dutch Senate in Spring 2001 but that is said to be a mere formality.)

No other country has such a law, although euthanasia is tolerated in Belgium, Switzerland and Columbia as it has been for years in the Netherlands. In America the state of Oregon allows doctor-assisted suicide to the terminally ill. In Australia, the Northern Territory legalised it in 1996 but repealed the law the following year ..Dutch doctors already perform euthanasia on approximately 3,200 patients a year, according to government figures. The Times, Wed 29th Nov. 2000.

One of the many ethical stumbling blocks that the Bill faced was that of the age of consent. Children between the ages of 12 and 16 can only ask for help to die with parental consent. – The Irish Times, Wed 29th Nov. 2000.

Even though The Netherlands will continue the process until euthanasia is made legal, it is no sure bet that a lot of other Western European Democracies will follow. Benk Korthals, the Justice Minister in The Netherlands was quoted in The Times as saying A law where by the considered wishes of a dying patient to put an end to his life are permitted has its place in a mature society. In the press this week, we are also reminded of the Nazi programme of euthanasia the 1930 s and 1940 s that now casts a darkness over the practice that remains today. Theirs was a programme designed to get rid of those whose lives were deemed unworthy of life . This quickly degenerated into the Holocaust (Newman, p.167).

National Socialist Euthanasia or mercy death was a program of killing persons with unworthy lives It was not a good death as the word donates, but a systematic program of killing without any mercy whatsoever .The program, referred to in the National Socialist bureaucracy as T4, was not based on any law, but was initiated by a secret order traceable to Hitler and his chief physician, Karl Brandt . (Lifton 1986). Euthanasia my have a bad name in the press but in order to make a rational decision on whether it is justifiable or not we must look at both sides of the argument. Els Borst, who drafted the Dutch bill said, Something as serious as ending one s life deserves openness.

Against.

Euthanasia destroys social respect for life. Where the medical profession was once an institution encouraging health and well being, it could become an instrument of death. There would be fear of degradation of humanity, where the moral standards of society would slide. In a society that devalues life, the instances of crimes against the person, such as murder, rape and other violent acts, would possibly increase. The Daily Telegraph of Wednesday 29th November quoted one man as saying, In the Netherlands, your life is no longer safe. Humanity has been devalued.

Even if euthanasia is carried out under strict conditions regarding specific circumstances, the potential for abuse is great. If doctors are not hesitating to kill people, they will not hesitate to withdraw treatment from people they do not like -The Guardian Wed 29th Nov. The level of accountability drops and mistrust of the medical profession sets in. The prohibition of killing is an attempt to promote a solid basis for trust in the role of caring for patients and protecting them from harm. The prohibition is both instrumentally and symbolically important and its removal would weaken a set of practices and restraints that we cannot easily replace. (Beauchamp and Childress, 1989)

Not only is there a risk of abuse, there is also a risk of mistake, which cannot be undone. In situations where patients are terminally ill, euthanasia, if legal, could be suggested to them as an option, by doctors, relations, friends etc. at a particularly uncomfortable time in their lives. People may opt for euthanasia if they feel like a burden on those people they love, therefore, having been forced into premature death, they have not made an independent choice. (I have based this purely on speculation but I think it could be a very probable circumstance for an impressionable elderly person.)

For.

The main argument for euthanasia, is the right to die. People may declare the right to have dignity in death. Supporters of the Dutch bill, including many doctors, said, as was quoted in The Irish Times it champions patients rights and brings a long standing practice into the open. Liberty and the right of self-determination should be a given in a democracy. Passive euthanasia (letting die) is claimed to be a natural death, by the advocates of euthanasia, regardless of the moral dilemma which entangles passive and active euthanasia. Technology, they say, prolongs life unnaturally.

Active euthanasia, on the other hand, would give the individual control for the timing of death, giving a chance for a organised last goodbye, rather than going unexpectedly, suddenly or even painfully.

It has also been claimed that people suffering from Alzheimer s may be tempted to take their own lives at an earlier stage in their illness.

Being able to choose the timing of one s death may actually put one s mind as ease. It is difficult to know, unless you are faced with the prospect of the onset of a terminal illness. I hate making decisions based on a reason that cannot know the truth without an emotional involvement. Fortunately that is all I can do in this essay. I will try to justify or refute euthanasia with some ethical theories.

Ethical egoism was put forth by Hobbes in his Leviathan. It says basically that anything that makes you happy must be right and also that everyone acts in self-interest. If you choose to die by either active or passive euthanasia it is based on your own self-interest and since your self-interest is conveniently ethical, it follows that euthanasia, according to ethical egoism, must be ethical.

Utilitarianism (Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill) is the greatest good for the greatest number. With regards to euthanasia and this particular theory, we must wait to see what happens in The Netherlands to determine if it can possibly increase the overall good. Only then can we ascertain whether it is ethical or not.

Consequentialism is where by the justification of an action is determined by the result. If the result is someone s death, consent or not, I don t think this theory would ethically justify euthanasia.

The subject of euthanasia does deserve debate and having changed my mind numerous times in preparing for this essay I would have to conclude that overall it would be an ethically bad thing. I cannot find a good enough reason for one man to kill another. Suicide is itself a selfish act and if the person wants to commit suicide they should go about it by themselves. If you put your mind to it you can do anything you want.

Adams, R et. al. 1992. Physician assisted suicide and the right to die with assistance. Harvard Law Review. (Internet Resources)

Beauchamp, T. and Childress, J. 1983 Principles of Biomedical Ethics Second Edition. New York, Oxford University Press.

Encyclopedia Britannica,1967 Vol.8 p.894

Council on Ethical and Judical Affairs 1992. Journal of the American Medical Association.

Lifton, R 1986. The Nazi doctors:medical killing and the psychology of genocide. New York.

Wolhandler, S 1984 Voluntary active euthanasia for the terminally ill and the constitional right to privacy. (Internet Resources)

Newspaper Resources:-

The Daily Telegraph Wed 29th Nov. 2000.

The Irish Times Wed 29th Nov. 2000.

The Times Wed 29th Nov. 2000.

The Guardian Wed 29th Nov. 2000.