Euthanasia, a Greece term that means good death, is a subject that has been heavily dominating conversations, drawing controversy and sparking diverse argumentations. It encompasses various notable dimensions, spanning from active euthanasia that involves introducing something with the intention to cause death to passive euthanasia that entails withholding supportive measures or treatment. It also encompasses physician-assisted death, whereby physicians and other medical practitioners prescribe medications that cause death to the patient. In all these dimensions, the most integral argumentation has revolved around the question of whether it is morally right and acceptable for people under any circumstances to decide if they want to die rather than undergo extreme suffering and pain, yet there are limited chances of recovery. Extensive research has since been conducted on the subject, and the purpose of this paper is thus to interrogate extensively the studies for and against euthanasia, and provide candid propositions on the subject matter.
Request for premature death and abetment of suicide has vastly contributed to the discussion about the salience of suchlike practices, especially in the contemporary healthcare sector. As such, the discussion cuts across significantly dynamic and complex aspects such as ethical, legal, religious, human rights, spiritual, health, cultural and social aspects of today’s civilized society. Moral and ethical issues, for example, predominantly arise as to whether euthanasia should be practiced, or otherwise. Some people consider the application of the right to die law for their loved ones, and on the contrary, others sharply criticize it majorly based on moral and religious reasons. Different authors have thus zeroed in on the matter, with some supporting it while others oppose and condemn assisted death strongly. Therefore, it is pivotal to carefully consider the assertions held by both schools of thought to comprehend their perspectives, and ultimately make an informed inference on whether euthanasia is acceptable or not.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Doing Ethics by Vaughn, there exist two different forms of euthanasia, as classified by James Rachel: Passive and Active. The author categorically agrees that it is acceptable and permissible to let a person die, depending on the particular situation or underlying circumstances. On the other hand, the author avers that it is not permissible to take immediate and direct actions aimed to kill a patient. Thus, it can be deduced that the author supports euthanasia albeit conditionally, whereby he opines that passive euthanasia is acceptable although active euthanasia cannot be justified. Limiting euthanasia to passive only can prolong the pain and suffering of the patient, although it can be reasonably humane in some instances to allow active euthanasia if it reduces the suffering of the patient. Thus, active euthanasia should be preferred especially considering that it allows suffering and agony encountered by patients to be brought to a speedy end.
This argument is sharply disputed by J. Gay Williams, in his work titled The wrongfulness of Euthanasia who argues from a different point of view and parallels Rachel’s argumentation of permissible euthanasia . Gay Williams holds that euthanasia is a social injustice that contravenes the moral fabric that shapes society. He categorically looks at euthanasia from a self-vested perspective. Although Gay Williams acknowledges that euthanasia and assisted suicide is becoming more prevalent and acceptable amongst many societies today, he strongly criticizes it, most especially if the act of killing an individual will, in turn, benefit someone else.
Both authors, James and Rachel and Gay Williams, based on their argumentations, depict the two sides of the coin and how they deeply connect to the bigger ethical theories such as virtue ethics, natural law, Kant’s theory, and utilitarianism. Natural law ethics, for example, is a moral jurisprudence that maintains laws and ways of life should be wholly based on ethics and morality. According to this theory, the law should be based on essentially what is correct, and it is discovered by humanity through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. In this regard, arguments from this theory hold that people have a natural desire to live and survive, and thus euthanasia and mercy killing violate this desire. Therefore, the practice is contrary to human nature, whereby it denies human dignity and is thus morally wrong. Natural Law hence falls in line with Gay Williams argumentation, which concurs that euthanasia contains the possibility of a person working for their self-vested interests, thus making it morally wrong. Also, euthanasia poses a threat to human dignity as it could have a corrupting and compromising influence on medical practitioners, whereby they might not try hard enough to save a patient’s life, which is also morally wrong.
Utilitarianism is yet another ethical value that contributes to the debate of whether or not euthanasia is permissible and morally acceptable. This normative ethical theory essentially places the locus of what should be deemed as right or wrong solely on the consequences and outcomes of choosing one policy or action over other policies or actions. In this regard, the utilitarianism theory moves far beyond just the scope of one’s interests and takes into consideration the interests of others as well. As such, utilitarians typically weigh the issues surrounding an issue and state that the ethically right thing to do is precisely that which informs the greatest amounts of happiness and satisfaction for the highest numbers of individuals involved.
The utilitarian theory thus justifies euthanasia, albeit only when certain conditions are met. Since the theory infers its ethical values on the actions that result in happiness for the majority of involved parties, it can thus be deduced that the theory partially condones euthanasia. If the individual wanted to end their life and fewer family members object to this decision compared to those who agreed, then the practice would be permissible. Nonetheless, if fewer family members agreed on euthanasia, then the utilitarian approach would examine what action would lead to the greatest levels of happiness. In a euthanasia or mercy killing scenario, the unnecessary agony and suffering of a family member who will ultimately and inevitably result in demise are thus not choosing to precipitate the highest satisfaction levels and greatest amounts of happiness. Therefore, the inference would be permitting or justifying the practice, which in one way or the other corroborates Rachel’s assertion.
Kantian theory opines that an action’s rightness entirely depends on its end effects. Good results thus make the action good, and vice versa. Thus, there are no exceptions and limitations to creating universal laws, as something is either right or wrong. In light of this theory, allowing euthanasia is thus wrong since it would lead to a new acceptable behavior of committing murder. Assisting suicide thus equals approving murder, since there are no exceptions in theory. Kant categorically asserts that any actions done under morally questionable circumstances remain wrong, irrespective of whether they yield good results or not. This further disregards assisted death and corroborate Gay William’s argumentation.
That said, it is cardinal to closely consider and interrogate the readings and draw concrete inferences. Patients should be free to make decisions regarding their fate and can thus voluntarily wish to die, a decision that is inferred after self-evaluation and determination. Allowing voluntary and active euthanasia ensures that the choice of self-determination of a patient is considered and accepted, and such people are wary of euthanasia if they find themselves in an extremely compromising situation. As such, the practice will relieve them of the unbearable psychological and physical suffering. On the other hand, it is refuted by the fact that it undermines moral and physician’s professional commitments. It will equally negate human dignity by allowing people to have their final word on their fate.
Individuals should be allowed to do what they deem right, and it is therefore not wrong to help such an individual achieve their desires. Nonetheless, if the assisting person does so with ill intentions of benefiting in any way from the other’s death, then the act is extremely wrong. Letting die and killing are distinct issues that should be distinguished since killing and intentionally instilling pain or harm on another person is wrong and does not promote the patient’s wellbeing.
Conclusively, euthanasia and assisted death is an overly sensitive ethical issue that medical practitioners need to consider keenly before establishing the most appropriate course of action. Noteworthy, it is apparent that euthanasia can significantly reduce a patient’s agony and suffering as well as alleviate overwhelming financial burdens even to family members and society at large as a result of expenses in hospital bills and life support machines that will eventually only help to add few days. Therefore, in cases of extreme patients who have the minimum living capacity, euthanasia can be preferred to end their painstakingly agonizing struggles. Nonetheless, such decisions must be wholly based on the interests of the individual or patient, and it is not the medical practitioners who should ultimately decide whether or not to terminate the life of the patient.
