The importance of this subject of euthanasia is solely based on the realization obtained after the death of my grandfather. The realization that society’s main goal should be to sustain all life, including the lives of the elderly, infant children and the mentally disabled, and not to take it away. Also, euthanasia seems to be described as a form of controlled murder, which leads to questions on the topic of professionals using euthanasia being punished for their actions. Because the end result of euthanasia is only death, euthanasia should not be practiced especially in professional environments such as hospitals.
Take into consideration the ideas of the following three philosophers: Rachels, Callahan, and Singer. James Rachels challenges the idea that passive euthanasia can be morally permissible but active euthanasia cannot. His argument is that killing someone is not worse than letting someone die, so active euthanasia is not worse than passive euthanasia. To help with understanding this concept, compare the following situations. The first situation is a person standing on a poolside watching another person drowning and not doing anything to help. The second situation is a person actually holding another person’s head underwater. Which do you think is worst? Understand that the end result in both situations is that the person drowning looses their life. Rachels feels that society should decide whether euthanasia is permissible in regards to the means by which death would be brought onto the individual, which, in that case, society should favor the means that is the most humane to the individual. Rachels furthers his thought by bringing up the case where a patient’s suffering can not be relieved by calming care. He introduces the idea that active euthanasia in this specific case should be used in favor of passive euthanasia because it would rid the patient of their suffering more quickly.
In contrast, Daniel Callahan preserves the distinctions made between active and passive euthanasia. Callahan views the distinction as a form of expressing three overlapping perspectives on nature and the human action. The first of these perspectives is the metaphysical perspective, which helps distinguish between the self and the external world. A way to think of this concept is to think that there is a world external to the self that has its own, and independent, causal dynamism. The second perspective Callahan speaks of is the moral perspective. This perspective emphasizes on the differences between physical causality and moral culpability. The physical causality can be described as being the human involvement, or the action of external nature, in the situation. The moral culpability is simply the moral responsibility of the one contributing the external involvement in the situation. For instance, the actions of the physician of the individual being treated is an example of the physical causality, and the physician’s thought of taking the individual’s life is the moral culpability, or responsibility. Callahan, on the other hand, mentions that if the physical causality and the moral culpability crossed paths then there would be no difference whether an individual is killed or allowed to die. The last perspective, the medical perspective, views the physician, or any medical professional in charge of an individual’s treatment, as curing and comforting rather than killing the individual. This distinction’s premise is the misuse of knowledge physicians have. The knowledge provided for physicians is given for the primary reason of sustaining life not taking the life away from an individual.
Lastly, Peter Singer introduced the idea that voluntary euthanasia can be morally justified in cases involving individuals suffering from painful, incurable conditions. Singer uses sources such as preference utilitarianism, the theory of rights, and the overall respect for autonomy as the basis for proving his argument. Simply, Singer considers the fact that the individual has the right to waive his/her own rights if the individual decides to do so. Also, the idea of respect for autonomy provides the thought of respecting the decisions rational agents, or the individual at hand, make including the decision to end his/her own life.
Notice, that none of the three philosophers discussed take strong stances against euthanasia altogether. The difference between the arguments of the three philosophers discussed seems to be merely the extent to which euthanasia should be allowed as an acceptable practice in society. Rachels’ idea that “killing someone is not worse than letting someone die” makes sense, but the fact that Rachels uses this as a basis to justify active euthanasia is absurd. The fact that an individual’s life is being taken away from them doesn’t justify that it is morally right to allow someone to die. Also, Callahan mentions in the third perspective of his argument that the physician carrying out euthanasia is viewed as “curing and comforting.” To be honest, I do not see any aspect of euthanasia that is “curing.” I understand that the physician may feel that he is comforting the individual, but killing the individual does not help to cure the person of his/her sickness. To cure someone is to rid them of their sickness and taking the individual’s life does not count as ridding them of their sickness. Singer makes sense when speaking of the individual’s rights and respecting the decisions the individual might make. But in the case of an individual nearing death, there is still need for clarity on the individual’s capability to make the decision of ending his/her own life.
It is understood, though, that there are some advantages to using euthanasia. The main advantage that all three philosophers seem to touch on is the idea that euthanasia prevents further suffering for individuals nearing death. Also, euthanasia allows the family of an incompetent suffering individual the chance to help the individual move pass the suffering. Another advantage of using euthanasia would be the idea of sacrificing one life to open space for the chance to save a life of another individual needing the same facilities in a hospital. But keep in mind that the removal of life should not even be an option for society. Society should take into consideration the importance of sustaining life and not taking it away. Every attempt for new life made by nature should be given a chance, especially in the case for infant children. Also, every moment of life should be held high and should not be taken away from any individual, no matter the age or mental capabilities. Lastly, the absence of euthanasia allows the family of the individual the chance to spend valuable time with their loved one.
Euthanasia seems to be a selfish practice and the act of sustaining life is the courageous, honorable, and thoughtful action. When an individual chooses euthanasia, it shows the individual is weak-minded and would rather die then use life to its fullest. Whereas, when an individual chooses life, it shows the individual is strong not only physically but mentally. Also, the individual expresses gratitude for the gift of life that has been given to them by not throwing it away so early. When a family decides euthanasia as the fate of their loved one, it shows the family doesn’t care much about spending all the time possible with the individual. Also, society should take into consideration selfish family members who might be thinking of financial benefits with the death of the individual.
In closing, take into consideration some of the following subjects. National agencies such as the American Medical Association have publicly announced against the practice of mercy killing. Should professionals that do otherwise be taken from their professions all together? Or is it an agreeable thought that the professional be fined or suspended for a period of time as is usual practice now? As mentioned earlier, professionals in the medical world are provided special knowledge to sustain human life. The practice of euthanasia seems to cross that boundary by allowing professionals to use the knowledge given to them for removing human life. State laws such as Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act approves of doctor assisted suicide for terminally ill. Does this not contradict the AMA’s statement, “the intentional termination of the life of one human being by another—mercy killing—is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands?” This situation could be rather confusing for a professional to make a deontological decision. When government laws, or rules, contradict with a national agencies rules, which set of rules is the professional to base his decision on? This shows that not only are professionals confused about the morality of euthanasia, but so is the government. The government should help professionals in the medical field by providing a firm set of rules, in which professionals may have the chance to base deontological decisions upon.
White, James E. Contemporary Moral Problems 6th Edition. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company). pp. 206-238.
