Relativism is a theory used especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.
If we look at the case of Mary Ormerod who was an 85 year old lady being kept alive by feeding her through a syringe following a series of strokes. She had no ability to communicate. Her children and her doctor took a decision not to feed her and so she starved to death. The GP was struck off by the GMC and given a suspended sentence having been charged with attempted murder.
The first thing we have to consider is that the view of the doctor and the family was that the quality of Mary’s life was not worth living. Many people accept euthanasia on the basis that it is better to be dead than sick or disabled. Others would argue that such a perspective devalues human life.
Possibly, individuals might hold either of these perspectives as a result of their own life experiences. It is difficult to be sure as to which the correct perspective might be. Ironically, Mary was unable to voice her own opinion and it is not known if she had left a Living Will. But, it was Mary who died a slow and painful death. Is it right that the quality of a persons life should be assessed by another person? Since, the view of the assessor will be based on their own experience and knowledge. A relativist would argue that there was no absolute moral position that would resolve this dilemma.
Many would believe that euthanasia is not an appropriate cause of action in any circumstance. They would argue that:
- All human beings are to be valued, irrespective of age, sex, race, religion, social status or their potential for achievement.
- Human life is a basic good as opposed to an instrumental good, a good in itself rather than as a means to an end.
- Human life is sacred because it's a gift from God Therefore the deliberate taking of human life should be prohibited except in self-defence or the legitimate defence of others.
Our value as human beings does not depend on anything else. Nor does it depend on whether we are having a good life that we enjoy, or whether we are making other people's lives better. We exist, so we have value.
Many people agree with that. They say that they do not think that we should use other people - which is a way of saying that we shouldn't treat other people as a means to our own ends.
This means that we should not end lives just because it seems the most effective way of putting an end to our suffering. To do that is not to respect our inherent worth. It is important to consider that unscrupulous people may encourage euthanasia as a means of achieving their own ends. Particularly , pressure could be bought on vulnerable people to achieve an outcome that they themselves may not desire.
Others would take the view that euthanasia can alleviate suffering. People have the right to determine their own destiny and die as and when they want to.
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.
And behind that lies the idea 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. Allied to this is a firm belief that death is the end.
Another ethical issue regarding euthanasia is, is death such a bad thing? If death is not a bad thing then many of the objections to euthanasia vanish. Once we get past the idea that death is a bad thing, we are able to consider whether death may actually sometimes be a good thing.
This makes it much easier to consider the issue of euthanasia from the viewpoint of someone who wants euthanasia.
Death is regarded as a bad thing:
- because human life is intrinsically valuable
- because life and death are God's business with which we shouldn't interfere
- because most people don't want to die
- because it violates our autonomy in a drastic way
The last two reasons why death is a bad thing are not absolute; if a person wants to die, then neither of those reasons can be used to say that they would be wrong to undergo euthanasia.
But some people say that being dead is not different from not having been born yet, and nobody makes a fuss about the bad time they had before they were born. In my opinion there is a big difference, even though being dead will be no different as an experience from the experience of not having yet been born. However, death is considered the end, and how can you feel what you are not conscientious to.
However some people regard death as bad thing as it is the worst possible violation of the wishes of the person who does not want to die. This links to euthanasia in the sense some people die involuntarily.
Finally, an ethical issue involved in Euthanasia is that it will happen anyway so isn’t it better to regulate it in someway.
People say things like "we can't control drugs so we'd better legalise them", or "if we don't make abortion legal so that people can have it done in hospital, people will die from backstreet abortions".
What lies behind it is Utilitarianism; the belief that moral rules should be designed to produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people.
If you accept this as the basis for your ethical code then the arguments above are perfectly sensible.
If you don't accept this principle, but believe that certain things are wrong regardless of what effect they have on total human happiness then you will probably regard this argument as cynical and wrong.
However, I feel that even if you do agree with the argument above, you then have to deal with the arguments that suggest that euthanasia can't be properly regulated..
Those in favour of euthanasia think that there is no reason why euthanasia can't be controlled by proper regulation, but even they fear that regulations won't deal with people who want to implement euthanasia for bad motives.
This is little different from the position with any crime. The law prohibits murder, but that doesn't stop bad people committing murders.
Nonetheless, people worry that whatever regulations are put into place they won't stop, particularly vulnerable, patients being pressured to choose death when they would rather live for a few more weeks.
For safeguards to be meaningful and effective, they have to involve investigations of the patient's psyche, their family dynamics and the financial implications of their death, among with more obvious things such as the patient's medical condition, and the likely course of the disease.
In order to ensure that requests are properly considered, both by the patient, the family, and the authorities, regulations need to build in a time-period for reconsideration.
Proper regulation must also make sure that a patient was receiving good palliative care before a request for euthanasia is considered.
Although the procedures outlined above are time-consuming and expensive, that does not mean that they are impractical.
If we apply the teleological ethical theory to this we could argue that in the long run the death of the person, where it has been intended, is for the best. It reduces suffering of not only the patient but the family. When considering the teleological theory we do not need to consider the means in which the person came to die, so people who believe in the teleological theory would say that the final outcome is the same as if the person had died of natural causes.
Overall as a principle I fail to understand why euthanasia is a bad thing as people will die anyway. Would you rather these people do it with a handgun or sleeping pills? People have been taking their own life since we had life to take, and the whole concept of euthanasia actually strikes me as an act of compassion, but people tend to make it out to be some horrible murderous act. It's the same with abortion, if a person feels they want to end their life or their pregnancy, who are we to legislate their decision. If I was in pain and terminally ill, and people wouldn't allow anyone to assist me and I wanted to die I’m not sure if I could sit around and wait just to help others morality. I would hope to be in old age by then and would assume most people would understand. Also I believe, if I'm not mistaken, the fight against Euthanasia is financed by the medical industry who stand to make alot more money keeping you alive then letting you pass on. Oddly enough the money that lobbied for euthanasia came not only from fundamental christain groups, but oddly enough from insurance companies...
Despite this I think euthanasia has to many complications to allow it be to be legalised.
This is due to factors such as, you can not distinguish a mentally ill person from a sane person if they both came into a clinic and said ‘I want to die.’ Also, someone who comes into a clinic and says "I want to die" will be considered crazy either way. It is for reasons like this euthanasia is so hard to regulate as finding out if the person is being taken advantage of, if they are genuinely ill or just fed up or if they are being forced into it would take too long and many people would argue that there are a lot more important issues going on in today’s society.
