Euthanasia and assisted death involve principles that allow individuals under certain circumstances to decide whether they want to die rather than undergo extreme pain and suffering yet there are no chances of recovering. Ethical issues arise as to whether assisted death or euthanasia should be practiced or not. Different authors have argued for or against the practice and there is no generally accepted stance whether it is acceptable or not. Similarly, bioethical principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice must be considered in determining whether euthanasia and assisted death should be practiced or not. Some individuals might consider the right to die law for their loved ones while others might be against it due to religious or moral reasons. It is therefore critical to consider the views held by the different schools of thought to understand their perspectives and make an informed decision as to whether the practice is acceptable or not. The purpose of this paper is to look into the arguments for and against euthanasia and assisted death and to propose the best course of action.
Summary of Course Readings
According to Doing Ethics by Vaughn, there are two types of euthanasia as proposed by James Rachels; active and passive. The author agrees that it is permissible to let someone die depending on the circumstances. On the contrary, it is not allowed to take direct action to kill a patient. According to Rachel passive euthanasia is acceptable but active is not. Limiting euthanasia to passive only can prolong the suffering of the patient but it can be humane in some instances to allow active euthanasia if it will reduce the suffering of the patient. Another notable contributor to the argument is J. Gay Williams who looks at euthanasia from a self-interest perspective. Gay agrees that active euthanasia is becoming more acceptable but holds the opinion that it is not right to kill a person if someone or the other will be better off dead.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Arguments from nature are of the opinion that all individuals have a natural desire to survive and therefore euthanasia violates the desire. The practice, therefore, is contrary to the human nature and denies human dignity and is morally wrong. The argument for self-interest opines that euthanasia contains the possibility that an individual will work against his or her personal interest and is therefore morally wrong. According to the practical effect, euthanasia can have a corrupting influence on the practitioners and are therefore morally wrong. The doctors might not try hard to save the life of a patient.
A patient is free to make a decision about the fate of their life and therefore can voluntarily decide to end their life. Such choices appeal to the goodness of self-determination, wellbeing, and autonomy. However, voluntary euthanasia involves voluntarily ending the life of an innocent person which is wrong. Permitting voluntary active euthanasia ensures that the decision of self-determination of a competent person is accepted and such people are aware that the act s available if they find themselves in such a situation. Voluntary euthanasia will, therefore, relieve the physical and psychological pain of an individual. However, allowing the practice of voluntary euthanasia would undermine the physician professional and moral commitments. Similarly, it will make some people worse off by allowing them to decide their fate. Additionally, it will lead to a fall down a slippery slope to involuntary or non-voluntary active euthanasia.
The different authors and principles as discussed by Vaughn support or disagree on euthanasia and voluntary assisted death. Some of the authors view the practice an as good depending on the circumstances and individual case while others are opposed to active euthanasia whether it leads to wellbeing or not. Philippa Foot, for example, tries to identify the boundary between active and passive euthanasia. According to the author, the two are misleading as they suggest the differences between acts and omission since interference in treatment is different from other forms of interferences especially if the same individuals are responsible for treatment or its discontinuation. An individual has a right that others do not interfere with his or her own life but does not have a right as to how others should act in a particular way. The other person should, however, act in the interest of the patient.
An individual should be allowed to do what they want and it is not wrong to refuse to assist such a person to achieve their desired goal. However, if such an individual is assisted and the person assisting is acting against the interest of the patient then such an act is wrong. Killing and letting die for example are ethical issues that raise serious concern. It can be argued that killing is morally wrong. Intentionally causing harm and intentionally allowing harm are also wrong since they do not enhance the wellbeing of the patient.
The practice of Euthanasia and assisted death to raise serious ethical issues that medical practitioners must consider before they can choose a particular course of action. It is evident that the practice can reduce the suffering of the patient and the financial burden of placing such a patient in life support machines of medication. A patient who has few months to live can prefer to end the suffering they are undergoing through euthanasia or assisted death. However, such a decision must be based on the interest of the patient and it is not the practitioners who should decide whether to end the life of such a patient or not.
