Evaluate the ethical arguments for and against keeping a person alive against his or her will.

      The hedonist outlook of Epicurus of Samos displays his views on the termination of life with his ‘Epicurean Theory of Pleasure’ dealing specifically with the issues of mercy killing and assisted death. Epicurus advocated a lifetime of continuous pleasure in order to achieve the goal of happiness. The aim was not to seek stimulated pleasure but to obtain a sustained level of continuous pleasure, for which he had a special definition. For pleasure to be existent, certain things needed to be absent such as boredom, hunger, sexual tension and pain, all forms of discomfort. All forms of comfort are good but not only can discomfort be negative, no comfort is considered a bad thing as Epicurus says; ‘No pleasure is a bad thing in itself’. It is also necessary for him to consider the way in which pleasure is generated and the consequences from this, ‘the means which produce some pleasures bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.’ Epicurus gave examples of three classes, which we can relate to with some affecting our quest for bliss in life. The class of ‘natural and necessary’ concerns those necessary elements, which if left alone, will cause greater pain until pursued i.e. physical needs. The second class is that of ‘natural and unnecessary’, they do not need to be fulfilled although that objective may easily be completed e.g. natural activities of enjoyment The final class is that of ‘unnatural and unnecessary’, it is not a case of pain but it is often difficult to obtain e.g. ambitions. Of the first two classes, policies of pursuing the most efficient and economic way of attainment is preferable whereas the final ideas should be completely ignored as the benefits of achieving some ambitions can offer a lifetime of burden. Epicurus makes a point of condemning the action of keeping alive a person who wishes to die. Different people have a different intrinsic balance of hedonistic rules. Once a person is dying in pain, Epicurus would argue at why they still remain because if they can no longer pursue pleasure, they have already failed to achieve bliss. To have led a happy life, the amount of pain would have to have been nominal and so whatever the underlying features of the situation, the Epicurean measure should be taken to terminate life and retain happiness.

       As well as the Ancient Philosophers, contemporary philosopher, Gerald Dworkin, has also written in support of euthanasia. He argues that assisted death ought to be legalised because of autonomy and relief of suffering. The patients should be given free will to choose the path, which they are to take and to decide to die without pain, with dignity and to have complete control over their situation in terms of timing and the way in which they die. Dworkin also discusses a parallel with the withdrawal of life support by claiming it to be effectively the same as euthanasia because of what it means as it too is assisted death of a sorts. In addition to this medical based idea, one ought to consider who has control of the life support machine and who can put people to sleep. Some might argue that the role of a doctor in society is to keep their patients alive; they are not ethically permitted to allow or assist a patient’s death. It is claimed that if doctors became an outlet for this sort of occurrence, then the family of the victims may pressurise those dying, to cut back on steep medical costs.

      The anti-euthanasia arguments deal more specifically with ethical considerations and religious stances with feelings shared by a multitude of faiths. One of the arguments comes from Aristotle, who spoke contrary to the beliefs of the democratic Athenian society under which he lived. He opposes suicide and describes those who take their own lives as hated beforehand as some sort of reasoning for their act. The terms in which he spoke referred directly to the state and how suicide violated the law through causing harm without provocation. Aristotle mentions invirtuous people (committers of suicide fall into this category) and how they have a natural inclination to perform wrong actions, making them a threat not only to themselves but also to other people. He doesn’t give a direct opinion on the matter of medically incurable persons seeking death but one would think it unlikely for him to respond in favour of actions that would help out these unfortunates. Aristotle has a firm view on social and emotional claims to death, ‘to seek death in order to escape poverty, or the pangs of love, or from pain or sorrow, is not the act of a courageous man…it is weakness’. One could interpret that Aristotle would consider a person seeking death to be not only cowardice but also invirtuous and lacking in morals. An important point to take from this is the idea that suicide or assisted death is a violation of the sanctity of human life. For Aristotle, all attempts of ‘disowning’ one’s life are unjustifiable such are the primary objectives of fulfilment to life.

       Following on from Aristotle’s defiant argument against euthanasia is an evaluation of Immanuel Kant’s views on the topic. If posed a question on whether a person ought to be given the opportunity to die when terminally ill, Kant would be of the view that the person should not be given that choice. He believes that the sufferer’s judgement on the issue is based solely upon reasoning and that within reasoning is the function of morality, which is held only by those persons who possess rationality. This infers that the person requesting death is in fact irrational. A famous saying of Kant’s can be used to formulate his opinion on the matter, ‘nothing can be conceived in the world…which can be called ‘good’, without qualification, except the ‘good will’. The use of the term ‘good will’ denotes an act of duty towards the moral laws. The person who obeys the law for its own sake is the one exhibiting good will though someone acting in his or her best interests does not merit the term ‘good will’. In this case, Kant’s Categorical Imperative is applicable; if a maxim can be put across as a universal law that receives no critical uptake, then it is therefore applicable and may be described as virtuous in the moral sense. Here, his earlier argument about obeying the law can make the maxim morally acceptable when obeyed for its own sake. Kant has a second form of Categorical Imperative, which he describes as ‘humanity as an end in itself’. Humans have the idea that they hold intrinsic worth whilst Kant believes that only those that possess reason have ‘intrinsic worth’ so other humans are things and can be given a price. For him to treat a human of intrinsic worth as if they were a means to an end would be immoral.

     Kant would argue against euthanasia and the example of a medically incurable person given previously. Such an example would conflict with his humanity as an end in itself version of the Categorical Imperative as the person being killed is of intrinsic worth but is assisted to death and that is wrong. Also, the example would not link in with the idea of a universally applicable law because some situations require different responses. The problem lies with the viability of alleviating suffering. If a law allowing euthanasia was initiated, then this would undermine the ideal of a human race of rational agents and make the law void as no one can enforce the maxim. If euthanasia cannot be initiated categorically then it should not be carried out and so as a general view, Kant would object to euthanasia.

    A modern-day religious approach to this argument is taken by Joseph Fletcher, an American theologian, gives a Liberal Protestant interpretation of euthanasia through Situation Ethics. The whole theory deals with all choices that a Christian has to make and accepts Jesus as a moral teacher. At the heart of the theory is the term ‘agape’ which refers to communal love based on mutual acceptance. Application of this requires four working principles and they are; pragmatism, relativism, positivism and personalism. Although through this, we cannot distinguish between what is morally good and what is morally right, it is applicable to each and every situation because it teaches that judgement on the same moral basis for each situation is wrong. Depending on the circumstances, Situation Ethics can aid the decision-making process and help choose whether it is right or wrong to keep someone alive against their will. Though flexible and useful as a result, there are some underlying problems that prevent Situation Ethics from being universally applicable for people.

     The views of the Ancient Philosophers are not particularly clear concerning this issue of preventing a person having the right to die. Medical progression over time has altered the type of situations that occur although some ideas about suicide can be applied here too despite obvious differences between terms. One would be lead therefore, to take the more modern philosophers ideas with greater importance but whilst Dworkin among others, put forward good arguments in support of euthanasia, the state of society ought to be considered with many in the twenty-first century wanting a more open approach to be taken. Morally though, those in power have felt an obligation and it is with such feeling that bills to allow euthanasia have constantly been rejected.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books used for research and provision of source material are listed below:

- Gorgias; trans. Irwin, in the Clarendon Plato series (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1979).

- Rist, J.M.: Epicurus: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972).

- Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide (For and Against) published by

Cambridge University 1998.

- Politics: Books III and IV (Clarendon Aristotle Series) published by Clarendon Press 1996.

- Kant, I.: ‘Duties towards the body in regard to life’, Lectures on Ethics, trans. Louis Infield (New York: Harper and Row, 1986).

- Situation Ethics: The New Morality- Joseph Fletcher (Library of Theological Ethics 1997).

-Peter Singer: A Companion to Ethics (Blackwell Companions to Philosophy 1993).

-Anthony Kenny: The Oxford History of Western Philosophy (Oxford University Press 1994).

-Michael Manning: Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Killing or Caring? (Paulist Press 1998).

-Raphael Cohen-Almagor: The Right to Die with Dignity: An Argument in Ethics, Medicine, and Law (Rutgers University Press 2001).

Online resources used for research are listed below:

-www.starsphilosphy.com- British student resource focused on all aspects of the philosophy of religion and ethics which is operated by St. Albans School,      secondary school of education.

-http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html- American freshman resource titled as ‘Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Abridged Table of Contents’ and which also provides philosophy links. It is operated by Stanford University.

---