Some argue that there is no moral difference between the withdrawal of treatment and the active killing of a patient by lethal injection. The consequences of legalising euthanasia are uncertain and so many are sceptical about it, there would undoubtedly be flaws in the systems that may regulate the practice. We cannot predict the impact that voluntary euthanasia may have on some peoples perceptions of hospitals or the idea of an elderly person leading them to believe that they are a burden. There are potential social dangers that stand against the restrictions of individual autonomy that result from prohibiting voluntary euthanasia.
Involuntary euthanasia is similar to voluntary euthanasia in that it deals with the killing of those whom are capable of thinking for themselves. The difference is that they do not consent to their own death. Some people may believe that it is possible to justify involuntary euthanasia on paternalistic grounds as it means that they are saving the person from excruciating pain. The case, or similar to, in which the paternalistic argument can be plausible is when the person does not realise what pain they would be in, in the future, if they were to carry on living. In light of this one may kill a person who would in their lifetime fall ‘into the hands of homicidal sadists who will torture her to death’. These cases are more commonly found in fiction rather than in reality. If in real life we are unlikely to encounter a case of justifiable involuntary euthanasia, then it may benefit us to rid of the fanciful ideas we may have that may defend it. We would treat the rule, therefore, as an absolute rule.
When we speak of the ‘right to life’ we may come across certain duties that instigate different views in some people. For example, there are two duties in particular, the duty of non-interference and the duty of service. The duty of non-interference states that nobody should interfere with another person’s life in any way that may threaten it. It is considered that the important factors are the way the patient feels about the quality of their life and their attitude towards it. This duty contrasts with the duty of service that states that it is one’s duty to try and help keep the person that is in immense pain, alive with or without their permission.
There are three distinctions made when dealing with the issue of euthanasia. The first is between voluntary euthanasia and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia occurs when a mentally competent person requests for their life to be terminated. Involuntary euthanasia, however, applies to those who are unable to make this decision for themselves. The second distinction to make is between direct and indirect euthanasia, both of these refer to a method of inducing death. Direct euthanasia involves the use of something specific to cause it, and indirect euthanasia refers to cases where death occurs as a side effect of treatment. The third distinction is between active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is the same as direct euthanasia as it is the intentional act of mercy killing. However, passive euthanasia is not the act of killing but of letting die, it allows the person to die while slowly withdrawing their treatment. Unusually, even the Roman Catholic Church accepts that sometimes a patient should be permitted to die. The church says that nobody has the right to kill but in the same respect, no one has the right to prolong someone’s painful suffering.
Voluntary euthanasia is often justified on the grounds that the death is preferable to the suffering that the person would have to undergo if their life was not terminated. Therefore, it is based on the expected results of physical or emotional pain. Contrary to this, involuntary euthanasia is when someone is killed in order to save them from additional suffering, but these people do not consent to their own death either because they are not asked or because when asked they choose to carry on living. Suicide is thought of as a self-administered euthanasia. Although suicide is not illegal, many people consider it to me morally wrong. The only aspect of suicide that is illegal is assisting someone who chooses to commit suicide.
Non-voluntary euthanasia is the killing of someone who is not in a position to ask to live or die. People such as newborn babies or people that are in a coma or people severely brain damaged. There is often a dispute, when discussing non-voluntary euthanasia, as to when death actually occurs. It used to be said that death occurred when the heart completely stops and the lungs cease to function. However, modern technology has proved that it is possible to keep these organs working even if the person is not conscious. Some definitions of death state the complete loss of a functioning brain is the time at which death occurs.
Passive euthanasia is the action of withdrawing a patient’s treatment in order to terminate their life, for example turning of a person’s life support system to which a comatose patient has been connected for a period of time. Active euthanasia is an action of killing someone in immense pain and is focused on the action in order to shorten the suffering. Medical technology is advancing all the time and so the ethical issues around euthanasia are becoming more and more complicated due to this. The law states that a person has the complete right to refuse treatment as long as he or she is fully competent and able to make this decision for themselves. If the person is in a position to refuse treatment then the doctor can decide to withhold the treatment.
Autonomy is the right of the patient to decide on his or her own treatment. The patient has the right to decide on the timing of his or her own death but doctors face the difficulty of deciding whether a patient is mentally competent enough to make this decision for themselves. Patients may feel pressured to accept the idea of premature death in order to relieve the anxious feelings of friends and relatives or of financial and emotional strain.
Many people believe that if euthanasia was in fact legalized then it may lead to all sorts of other problems. Such as, infanticide or euthanasia for the socially maladjusted or politically deviant. Other people look at the risk of abuse by members of the family and by all those who stand to gain something by the death of someone elderly or sick. Some doctors decide to have nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia. They claim that their job is to save the lives of those in need rather than take it away. There is also the risk of wrong diagnosis to a patient or the discovery of new treatment that could help an ill patient. Some people argue that since medical science can prolong life almost indefinitely, what should now be protected are not so much the persons right to life but also their right to die. They argue that to subject a patient to an unnaturally slow and painful death is not only immoral and cruel but also lacking in compassion for the friends and family of the person suffering.
The issue of euthanasia is highly complex and as no two cases are the same, laws referring to euthanasia are questioned regularly. Philosophers have introduced to us a number of duties and principles that we are able to refer to when dealing with this highly difficult issue of euthanasia. These principles are recognized generally if not universally accepted. It is unusual for the Roman Catholic Church to accept any form of euthanasia but recent developments show us that they have begun to accept that in some situations, letting the suffering die is the kindest and most moral thing to do. They hold that no one has the right to kill but equally no one has the right to put someone through immense suffering.
As discussed before, many people believe that the legalisation of euthanasia would be the beginning of a society with very few morals and very little compassion for other human beings. Through experiences such as Nazism, people are fearful of the breakdown of moral foot holes, as seen at Auschwitz, euthanasia was not something that was considered to be a very large problem. In fact the Nazi’s did not have a euthanasia program. They were not motivated by concern for the suffering of those being killed. If the laws were changed so that anyone could carry out an act of euthanasia there would be no boundaries for the killing of those competent or incompetent. Doctors already have a great deal of power over life and death as they have the ability to withhold any patient’s treatment. It is believed by some that the legalisation of euthanasia may well act as a check on the power of doctors since it may bring into the open what some doctors may do in secret. The immorality of doctors is rarely questioned so it is unknown whether legalising euthanasia would be a good step to take when considering they way in which doctors work. People put a great deal of faith in their doctors but this may change if some doctors are discovered to be less moral and honest as was originally thought of them.
Euthanasia is one of the most widely debated occurrences in many countries. It is a highly complex topic and may never cease to be differed over. Many principles have been offered as a way of understanding euthanasia but they do not give answers or ways around the massive problems that arise for many people and their relatives when faced with the right to live or the right to die.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Practical Ethics, Second Edition by Peter Singer, Cambridge University Press 1993
Moral Problems by Michael Palmer, The Lutterworth Press Cambridge 1991
Moral Problems in Medicine by Michael Palmer, The Lutterworth press Cambridge 1999
Ethics and Religion by Joe Jenkins, Heinemann 1999
Ethical Studies by Bob Bowie, Nelson Thornes 2001
Issues of Life and Death by Michael Wilcockson, Hodder and Stoughton 1999
Life’s Dominion by Ronald Dworkin, HarperCollins 1993
The original meaning of ‘euthanasia’ is derived from the Greek eu (good) and thanasia (death) and so transpires to mean ‘a quiet and easy death’.
Peter Singer argues that ‘if the individual were not a person - not rational or self-conscious…’ then euthanasia would be ‘justifiable’.
Taken from ‘Practical Ethics’ Second Edition by Peter Singer.
Also taken from ‘Practical Ethics’ Second Edition by Peter Singer.
James Rachels believes this to be without moral significance as he has written in his essay about active and passive euthanasia.