Euthanasia and its morality

 

By: MARY ANN M. REYES

Divine Word College of Laoag

 

Abstract:

Euthanasia is undeniably one of the most pressing social issues of our times. It is a topic that has been the subject of debate and arguments. Euthanasia is a relevant concern in human rights discussions as it not only touches ethical but also practical, religious, and legal issues about a patient's right to end his life. To provide background, this paper aims to define euthanasia and its four types. It also presents the arguments of proponents for both the opposing and supporting sides as every individual or group has a different viewpoint regarding euthanasia. Every individual or group has a different viewpoint regarding euthanasia. This paper hopes that the following articles will provide insight into these issues.

Keywords: euthanasia, types of euthanasia, anti-euthanasia, pro-euthanasia

 Introduction

The marvels brought about by the expanding availability of fast-pacing medical technology not only bring extraordinary opportunities to save human lives. By prolonging the agonizing journey of a terminally-ill patient, they can also be a source of significant weight in terms of suffering and medical expenses.

The word “Euthanasia” comes from the Greek words “Eu” meaning good and “Thanatos” meaning death. Put together it means good death. Euthanasia, also called mercy killing, then, is an act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons who are suffering from a painful and incurable disease or incapacitating physical disorder or allowing them to die by withholding treatment or withdrawing artificial life-support measures. The idea is that instead of condemning someone to a slow, painful, or undignified death, euthanasia would allow the patient to experience a relatively “good death”.

Euthanasia is executed at an individual’s consent most especially if someone is suffering from a terminal illness. Moreover, the decision to administer euthanasia can also be made by the patient’s family or doctors. However, it must be noted that only if the patient is critically ill such that he or she cannot reasonably decide or think, can a decision by the family or doctors be arrived at.

Euthanasia has given way to unprecedented debates in society because it involves several considerations and arguments. The most significant of these are practical, religious, and ethical issues. Besides, euthanasia is seen as a challenge to doctors since it veers away from medical ethics. In some countries, it is considered illegal. Therefore, approaches towards euthanasia require caution since it can lead to legal repercussions (Nicholson, 2000).

Types of Euthanasia

There are four types of euthanasia – active, passive, voluntary, and nonvoluntary. Healthline.com lists these different types of euthanasia when they're used, and what type is chosen depends on a variety of factors, including someone's outlook and level of consciousness.

 When most people think of euthanasia, they think of a doctor directly ending someone’s life. This is known as active euthanasia. Purposely giving someone a lethal dose of a sedative is considered active euthanasia. It is sometimes called “aggressive” euthanasia.

Passive euthanasia is sometimes described as withholding or limiting life-sustaining treatments and support such as a ventilator or feeding tube so that a person passes more quickly. A doctor may also prescribe increasingly high doses of pain-killing medication. Over time, the doses may become toxic.

If someone makes a conscious decision to seek help with ending their life, it’s considered voluntary euthanasia. The person must give their full consent and demonstrate that they fully understand what will happen.

Nonvoluntary euthanasia involves someone else deciding to end someone's life. A close family member usually makes the decision. This is generally done when someone is completely unconscious or permanently incapacitated. It usually involves passive euthanasia, such as withdrawing life support from someone who's showing no signs of brain activity.

 Arguments

In general, arguments over euthanasia are primarily based on practical, religious, and ethical, and legal issues.  The following presents arguments of both opponents and proponents surrounding euthanasia.

 Opposing Euthanasia

Individuals and groups opposing euthanasia support the following arguments (BBC, n.d):

Euthanasia is against the word and will of God. Religious people don’t argue that we cannot kill ourselves or get others to do it. They know that we can do it because God has provided us with free will. They argue that while it is true that we can do it, it would be wrong to do so. To kill oneself or to get someone to do it for us, is to deny God.

Euthanasia weakens society’s respect for the sanctity of life. Anti-euthanasia arguments posit that euthanasia is bad because of the sanctity of human life. They argue that euthanasia devalues life because it interferes with the fundamental processes of human life. They claim that death should be perceived as a natural phenomenon like birth and life as a whole. Religious people hold that birth and death constitute the fundamental life processes that were created by God, and they are ought to be respected because they are sacred. They further claim that life is a sacred gift from God that has to be treated with dignity (Shiflett & Carroll, 2002).

Suffering may have value. Religious people sometimes argue against euthanasia because they see positive value in suffering. Christianity teaches that suffering allows the sufferer to share in Christ’s agony and his redeeming sacrifice. Suffering draws a person interiorly close to Christ. Pope John Paul II said that "It is suffering, more than anything else, which clears the way for the grace which transforms human souls."

Accepting euthanasia accepts that some lives, especially those of the disabled and sick, are worth less than others. Some people fear that allowing euthanasia sends the message that it's better to be dead than sick or disabled. The connotation is that some lives are not worth living. This belief not only exposes the sick or disabled to risk, but it also downgrades their status as human beings while they are still alive. But from a disabled person's perspective, all people regardless of capacities have equal rights and opportunities to lead good lives. Many persons with disabilities enjoy living despite the obstacles. On one hand, many individuals who do not have disabilities don’t enjoy life, but no one is threatening them. In a disabled person’s eyes, the proper approach is to provide them with appropriate support and not to kill them because the quality of a person’s life should not be assessed by others, more so, that the quality of a disabled person’s life should not be assessed without providing the proper support and treatments first.

Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to nonvoluntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable. Many people worry that if voluntary euthanasia were to become legal, it would not be long before nonvoluntary euthanasia would start to happen. This is called the slippery slope argument. Simply put, it says that if we allow something relatively harmless today, we may unwittingly start a trend that results in something currently unthinkable becoming accepted.

 Euthanasia affects other people’s rights, not just those of the patient. Euthanasia is usually discussed from the point of view of the person who wants to die. What it fails to mention sometimes is that it affects other people, and similarly, their rights should also be considered. These other persons include the family and friends, the medical people and other caregivers, other people in a similar circumstance who may feel pressured into making the same decision, and lastly the society in general.

 

Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary. Good palliative care is the alternative to euthanasia. If it is available to every patient, it would certainly reduce the desire for death to be brought about sooner. Anti-euthanasia groups believe that the introduction of euthanasia will reduce the availability of palliative care in the community because health systems will want to choose the most cost-effective ways of dealing with dying patients. Allowing euthanasia will lead to less good palliative care for the terminally ill because it undermines the commitment of doctors and nurses to saving lives, it will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill and it undermines the motivation to provide good care for the dying and good pain relief

There is no way of properly regulating euthanasia. Euthanasia opponents don't believe that it is possible to create a regulated system for euthanasia that will prevent the abuse of euthanasia. Opponents of euthanasia have raised fears over the regulation of the issue, since it may compromise medical ethics (Nicholson, 2000). For instance, approval of euthanasia as part of the medical procedures may compromise the performance of healthcare professionals (Dobson & Galbraith, 2000).

 

Euthanasia gives too much power to doctors. Doctors should not be allowed to decide when people die. This argument often appears as 'doctors should not be allowed to play God'. Since doctors give patients the information on which they will base their decisions about euthanasia, any legalization of euthanasia, no matter how strictly regulated, puts doctors in an unacceptable position of power.

 Euthanasia exposes vulnerable people to pressure to end their lives. The fear is that if euthanasia is allowed, vulnerable people will be put under pressure to end their lives. People who are ill and dependent can often feel worthless and an undue burden on those who love and care for them. They may be a burden, but those who love them may be happy to bear that burden.  It would be difficult, and possibly impossible, to stop people using persuasion or coercion to get people to request euthanasia when they don't want it. The last few months of a patient's life are often the most expensive in terms of medical and other care. Shortening this period through euthanasia could be seen as a way of relieving pressure on scarce medical resources, or family finances.

 Pro-euthanasia

Individuals and groups supporting euthanasia set out the following arguments (http://www.bbc.co.uk):

 People have an explicit right to die. Many people think that each person has the right to control his or her body and life and so should be able to determine at what time, in what way, and by whose hand he or she will die. Behind this lies the idea that human beings should be as free as possible, and that unnecessary restraints on human rights are a bad thing. Another idea is that human beings are independent biological entities, with the right to take and carry out decisions about themselves, providing the greater good of society doesn't prohibit this.

 

A separate right to die is not necessary, because other human rights imply the right to die. Without creating or acknowledging a specific right to die, it is possible to argue that other human rights ought to be taken to include this right. Individuals and groups that support euthanasia argue that the right to life includes the right to die. The right to life is not a right simply to exist; it is a right to life with a minimum quality and value. For them, death is the opposite of life, but the process of dying is one of the most important events in human life. Therefore, people have the right to try and make their life events as good as possible and being so, they have the right to try to make their dying also as good as possible.

Death is a private matter and if there is no harm to others, the state and other people have no right to interfere. If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned without violating their rights then that action is morally acceptable. Persons in favor of euthanasia argue that in some cases, euthanasia promotes this belief and therefore is morally acceptable.

 

Allowing people to die may free up scarce health resources. Euthanasia may be necessary for the fair distribution of health resources. This argument has not been put forward publicly or seriously by any government or health authority. In most countries, health resources are scarce. As a result, some people who are ill and could be cured are not able to get prompt access to the facilities they need for treatment. At the same time, health resources are being used on people who cannot be cured, and who, for their reasons, would prefer not to continue living. Allowing such people to resort to euthanasia will not only let them have what they want, but it will also free valuable resources to treat people who want to live.

 It is possible to regulate euthanasia. Individuals and groups in favor of euthanasia think that there is no reason why euthanasia cannot be controlled by proper regulation. On the other hand, they also acknowledge that some problems will remain. For instance, it will be difficult to deal with patients who want to commit euthanasia for selfish reasons or to pressure vulnerable patients into dying.

 Euthanasia satisfies the criterion that moral rules must be universalizable. Formally stated, a rule is universalizable if it can consistently be willed as a law that everyone ought to obey. The only rules which are morally good are those which can be universalized. As put forward by Immanuel Kant, one of the commonly accepted principles in ethics is that only those ethical principles that could be accepted as a universal rule should be accepted. In other words, one should only do something if he or she is willing for anybody to do the same things in exactly similar circumstances, regardless of who they are. Persons in favor of euthanasia argue that giving everybody the right to have a good death through euthanasia is acceptable as a universal principle and that euthanasia is therefore morally acceptable.

 Conclusion

Euthanasia has indeed raised some ethical concerns in our society and these concerns not only delved upon ethics but also on practical and religious issues. With the huge differences in viewpoints and perceptions, euthanasia encompasses enormous uncertainties.  Therefore, different individuals and groups view it from varied differing perspectives giving way to the emergence of two opposing sides, the anti-euthanasia, and the pro-euthanasia. However, whatever their concerns and arguments are, as listed in this paper, there exists no universal concurrence over whether euthanasia is right or wrong. Euthanasia has indeed put mankind into some kind of ethical dilemma.

 References:

BBC (n.d). Anti-euthanasia arguments. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk

Dobson, K., & Galbraith, K. (2000). The Role of the Psychologist in Determining Competence for Assisted Suicide/euthanasia in the Terminally Ill. Canadian Psychology,41, 7-23.

Euthanasia: Understanding the Facts. Retrieved from https://www.healthline.com

Nicholson, R. (2000). No Painless Death yet for European Euthanasia Debate. The Hastings Center Report, May-June 2000

 BBC (n.d). Pro-euthanasia arguments. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk

Shiflett, D., & Carroll, V. (2002). Christianity on Trial: Arguments against Anti-Religious Bigotry. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books.