Euthanasia 4
some however, it is not a moral decision, but rather, a right to die as each person has a right to live. However, euthanasia is not only immoral on a personal level but is a threat to our society as a whole and should not only be socially unacceptable but legally impermissible.
Joanne Lynn shows in her article Hospice and End-of-Life Care that hospice, which has roots dating back to medieval times, began its modern movement during the late 1960s, the first of which being in England. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, from England, began this movement for the United States with her publication on a dying person’s experience. The purpose of hospice care is for a dying person to focus on “comfort and function rather than on cure or prolongation of life.” It is reasonable to say then that some people may die sooner than they would otherwise with a physician’s care. It is not reasonable to assume however that, since hospice care allows their patients to die, they should be able decide to hasten their death with the help of their caretaker.
In April of 2001, the Dutch parliament voted to formalize physician-assisted suicide. It was found soon after that nearly twenty percent of those subject to euthanasia did not consent and eight percent of infant deaths were caused by their doctor. Many cases have turned into non-voluntary euthanasia (Euthanasia.com). Also, in the United States, Dr. Jack Kevorkian was convicted of second degree murder at age 72 for his nationally televised killing of Thomas Youk. Youk, 52, was one of some 130 patients Dr. Kevorkian helped “die with dignity.” After his sentencing to 10-25 years in prison, Judge Cooper said, "This trial was not about the political or moral correctness of euthanasia, it
Euthanasia 5
was about lawlessness. It was about disrespect for a society that exists because of the strength of the legal system. No one, sir, is above the law. No one. You had the audacity to go on national television, show the world what you did and dare the legal system to stop you. Well, sir, consider yourself stopped,” (Euthanasia.com).
So why is euthanasia morally wrong? According to J.E. Tiles, Confucian ethics dictate that no one is born human-- it is something earned. The central idea is that there is no self without others. For example, one would say, “I am a friend,” “I am a brother,” etc. and therefore, it is determined that all people are apart of one whole. By harming one’s self, they harm the group. From this logic, “morality” is based on the group. By nature, people are moral beings and if, by killing one’s self they forfeit their morality, they forfeit their humanity.
According to the deontologist approach, all morality is determined by reason and is objective. All logic can be determined by what are called ‘maxims’ or ‘if, then’ statements. If the maxim contradicts, it ceases to be rational and therefore immoral. The central idea is that all rational beings deserve respect and have a love of self. If one loves himself, then he should not kill himself and no human should be used as a means to an end (Tiles 167-173, 214-220). Moreover, nearly all physicians are required to take an oath called “The Hippocratic Oath” which states, “First do not harm,” (Colb) and “I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel,” and therefore all physicians acting under said oath are breaking that oath when pursuing euthanasia.
Euthanasia 6
Aside from its moral implications, most of the states in the U.S. prohibit euthanasia all though it is not a national law. When the case Washington v. Glucksberg was brought to the Supreme Court, it argued that people have a right to assist suicide and that that the Fourteenth Amendment protects that right. The ruling was in favor of Washington, who already had an anti-assisted suicide law, stating that, “[Suicide] is so abhorrent to the feelings of mankind, and that strong love of life which is implanted in the human heart that it cannot be so frequently committed as to become dangerous to society.” Also in a similar case in New York, Vacco v. Quill, the argument was against the state of New York saying that their ban on assisted-suicide is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court again held that the ban is not in violation, “Everyone, regardless of physical condition, is entitled, if competent, to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment; no one is permitted to assist a suicide. Generally, laws that apply evenhandedly to all unquestionably comply with equal protection,” (United States Supreme Court).
In the debate for euthanasia, it is often referred to as “mercy killing.” It is the killing of a person who suffers great pain due to their illness to stop their suffering. Unfortunately, this idea, though a noble one, can have dire effects. In the Netherlands, nearly twenty percent of victims of euthanasia did not consent to their termination. Likewise:
"In October of 1939 amid the turmoil of the outbreak of war Hitler ordered widespread "mercy killing" of the sick and disabled. Code named "Aktion T 4,"
Euthanasia 7
the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate "life unworthy of life" at first focused on newborns and very young children. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry. The Nazi euthanasia program quickly expanded to include older disabled children and adults. Hitler's decree of October, 1939, typed on his personal stationery and back dated to Sept. 1, enlarged ‘the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death,’” (Euthanasia.com).
Furthermore, the argument of allowing someone to ‘die with dignity’ is a “faulty argument,” says Matthew Simpson, a current World Religion major at Mary Washington University, “their idea of dying with dignity is that they die by pride in a vain attempt to conquer death…but they set the example that it’s okay to give up.” While philosophically, under the existential view, euthanasia is actually not only permitted, but could be seen as respected. The main theme of existentialism being that there is no “ought”, but that people are responsible for everything that they do and everything that happens to them. Essentially, values and morals are man-made for order and it is man that gives value to them. However, the contradiction lies in that if man places value on
Euthanasia 8
his own morals, those morals will not necessarily coincide with the rest of society’s and therefore, there is no common moral only chaos.
All of the problems of permitting euthanasia, as well as any other act which puts the power over life in the hands of an individual, come back to the human condition. The human race is a people of great diversity, strengths, and weaknesses. The human race is a people capable of doing great deeds of valor and nobility, and great deeds of atrocity. The human race trusts and that trust is a sacred characteristic that is spoken of least and when, as a people, that trust is placed in its caretaker’s hands, it is a crystal goblet—frail and precious. “If physicians become killers or are even licensed to kill, the profession—and , therewith, each physician—will never again be worthy of trust and respect as healer and comforter and protector of life in all its frailty,” (Brock 171).
