RE euthanasia for and against

The Quakers however are more divided in their view. Some consider euthanasia as being the merciful option and by allowing the option of euthanasia to someone would be fulfilling Jesus’ rule to “love your neighbour as you love yourself”. Others however think that, “Prayer ... may bring healing and unity”

        Judaism’s scriptures include “Thou shalt not kill” which, effectively, euthanasia is going against. Orthodox Jews would argue that this is a direct command from God and to oppose it would be going against God directly. In Samuel 1:8-10, an Amalekite tries to tell King David that he had helped kill Saul because Saul had asked him to. This is an example of euthanasia however King David has the soldier executed. More recently, a rabbi on a website (who remained anonymous) has stated that, “Jewish law forbids euthanasia in all forms, and is considered an act of homicide”. It can therefore be seen that euthanasia is forbidden in Judaism and going by their point of view, should not be legalised.

        Muslims would oppose euthanasia in every way due to the fact that there is an imperative command in their scriptures. The Qur’an says, “Take not life which Allah made sacred”. The Qur’an too claims that, “no person can ever die except by Allah's leave and at an appointed term”. This suggests that is it forbidden by Allah, then the Islamic view would too be to never legalise euthanasia.

        From a Religious standpoint, no matter how other views are looked upon, the standpoint is overwhelmingly obvious not to let euthanasia come into practise as it goes against the will of God.

ETHICAL THEORIES:

UTILITARIANISM

Jeremy Bentham devised utilitarianism it can be seen that utilitarianism strives for the greatest good for the greatest number. Bentham clearly expresses this when he states, “The principle of utility is meant to... augment or diminish the happiness of the party in question”. This is the greatest good for the greatest number and it can be argued that perhaps terminating someone’s life might be the greatest good as their loved ones no longer have to see the patient suffer.

In his book utilitarianism 1863 John Stuart Mill favoured rule utilitarianism because it was similar to the original; however, this version followed some rules to provide the greatest good for the majority. An example of this is driving on the left side of the road in England. It might not be convenient for us but is good for everyone else in England as it helps maintain order. People in favour of following this type of utilitarianism would say that as long as we have a set of rules, we could all be as happy as possible.

        Negative utilitarianism tries to eliminate all pain altogether. Although this is good in theory (having no pain in the world), this would mean that we would use any pain that we did come across as an excuse for euthanasia such as a tiny pinprick that might make us select euthanasia.

Preference utilitarianism is distinguished, as everyone’s experience of satisfaction is unique, as we cannot decide what is good as it differs for different people. We could apply this with statistics to see who would approve of euthanasia, as everybody’s opinion would be different.

        A criticism of euthanasia is, what stops one person’s pleasure being carried out? If an insane person liked to kill people and a sane person liked to watch television, we would then (following utilitarianism) have to give equal weight to the insane person because he is still getting a pleasure out of killing someone as the sane person is, watching television.

FLETCHER AND S.E.

        Joseph Fletcher devised situation ethics. Situation ethics (a teleological theory) is a guide to know how to show the most agape love in a particular situation, “the situationist follows a moral law or violates it according to love’s need”. Unlike utilitarianism, this can deal with the individual case. There is however a major flaw in this argument, which is that it, is a slippery slope argument. It over steps some ethical boundaries such as if we were to legalise euthanasia, then it could lead to lots of justifications such at infanticide and other things that can be reasoned with using situation ethics.

The flaw of situation ethics is that it can be used to justify virtually anything. If a doctor performs involuntary euthanasia behind the patient’s back, he could use situation ethics to rationalise that the patient was suffering and since in this individual case, it was the right thing to do, he would be right. This is an abuse of the system and some will abuse it.

KANT

        Immanuel Kant considered humans to be obligated to follow a moral obligation such as “thou shalt not kill”. He feels we are duty bound to follow these obligations. In reference to euthanasia, he would be against it, as he does not believe euthanasia to be a moral obligation. Kant believes that we just do know what to do because he said we have categorical imperatives, which are a set of immutable rules that we all follow. In 1785 Kant argued that, “morality is not the doctrine of how we may make ourselves happy, but how we may make ourselves worthy of happiness”. He means we must do things that make us worthy of contentment. In this case, doing the right thing is to not allow for the legalisation of euthanasia.

DEONOTLOGICAL ETHICS

        For deontological ethics, the important thing is not the result, but how we get there. If the action is wrong to start of with, do not do it at all. They would say that we should not kill because the act of killing is wrong in itself. If we take an example of torturing a prisoner who has valuable information, they would be opposed to it no matter the outcome because the act of torture is bad. When applied to euthanasia, they would hold the view that we cannot end someone’s life because the act of ending someone’s life is not right even if the consequence is good.

FOR EUTHANASIA (including keeping dignity)

        Euthanasia is already a legal practice in countries such as Switzerland and the Netherlands. Keeping someone alive with medical treatment knowing that they will not survive is costly. Although brutal, the fact still remains that giving them the option of euthanasia can greatly reduce hospital bills, costs for other patients and provide more free beds.

        It can be argued that the opportunity of euthanasia can allow people to maintain their dignity if they do not want to allow their family to see them like this or want to stop being what they might perceive as a burden. The human rights declaration states, “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression”. This includes the freedom of being able to choose whether or not they should be able to die or not, when they choose.

The humanist Thomas More argued that if one is undergoing “a torturing and lingering pain… they may choose rather to die since they cannot live in much misery”. It seems that More is arguing that euthanasia is a merciful and loving option even if it does end a life. More can be seen to promote the pro-choice movement and therefore the legalisation of euthanasia.

        John Stuart Mill argues that the choice does not concern others who are not experiencing the same trauma as the patient. He explains, “In the part that merely concerns himself, his independence is sovereign”. Mill argues that our opinions should be respected. This view is upheld by the VES as they state that we have the right to choose our own destiny, which includes when and how we should die. This suggests that it should be made the law because if people should be given the choice to control their destinies, then why is the law acting as a barrier against this?

        David Hume supported a libertarianism view. He said, “By liberty, we can only mean a power of acting or not acting”. Being a libertarian, he believed that we are free to make our own choices and we should not have anything ‘determined’ for us whether it be by destiny or law.

AGAINST EUTHANASIA (GENERAL)

        Some would be blinded by their pain and think for the short term. They could decide that the pain is too great and they would be happier if the moment stopped. Do people who ask for euthanasia (who are in great pain) really know what they are asking for? Many people with painful periods in their life can look back and be glad that the law did not allow the option to tempt them and that they can live the rest of their lives in full.

        Hooker argues that mistakes could be made. He disputes euthanasia by saying, “after a person has died, it would become apparent that the diagnosis was incorrect”. Hooker suggests with the intention of expressing the view that not all doctors will get a diagnosis exact and the consequences could be dire. By not allowing euthanasia, this problem is eradicated.

        Elderly relatives could think that they are being a harsh load on their families and want to take some weight off their shoulders. They could choose death as an option and choose euthanasia. This would be abuse of the system and in fact not be the best option when they still have a potential to lead a fulfilling and satisfying life. Jonathan Glover (British philosopher) notes that people will act depending on others, including if the consequences are dire for them. This type of mistreatment of the law can be stopped by not allowing euthanasia to be legalised.

        A hospital is a place of safety and somewhere where people go to get better. If this place is tainted with the option of voluntary euthanasia, people could feel intimidated to go to hospital in fear of a doctor deciding for them whether or not they should live or die if they can no longer respond.

CASE STUDY

        The case of Tony Bland (UK) was after the Hillsborough disaster of 1989. He was left on life support machines and although able to feed and breathe, he was in a coma. The case resulted in his life support machine being switched off. The outcome was that his doctor could not be expected to preserve his life at all costs. This however leaves the moral question of should it have been switched off even though more could have been done? This case from a practical point of view supports euthanasia as it shows that the doctor’s time and government’s money can be used elsewhere where it can actually be of a benefit.

PATIENT CHOICE vs. DOCTOR RESPONSIBILITY

        The patient has the right to make a choice whether or not they opt for euthanasia however the doctor also has a responsibility to make a choice whether or not a patient should undergo euthanasia or not. Some Christian doctors (xtian doctors) have refused as it goes against the commandments whereas others (not Christian) refuse to do it because it goes against what being a doctor is about, they should be saving lives not ending them. Others would argue that we couldn’t legalise euthanasia because some doctors would look to lower costs and perhaps recommend or perform euthanasia unnecessarily. The Hippocratic oath that a doctor takes because they are there to save lives, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect”. One could argue that to stay true to their pledge, they must not accept euthanasia and be very much against its legalisation.

BMA VIEW (will put this into my own words but for now I just need the information on it)

The British medical association is against euthanasia. It argues that there are ethical issues at stake.

“The moral arguments that killing is intrinsically wrong, alien to the ethos of medicine and potentially diminishes societies that permit it as a solution for social problems are reinforced, in the BMA's published view, by practical concerns”.

If the doctors who are the ones that will be carrying out the act of euthanasia are not willing to do it, we cannot pass this law.

The recent ‘assisted dying for the terminally ill’ bill was rejected by BMA doctors by 163 to 88 doctors refusing it. This is almost double rejecting the statement, maybe because of religion or perhaps morality but nevertheless, it is still a rejection from the doctors and their view as well as the patient’s must be respected.

ALTERNATIVES TO EUTHANASIA

We can also discuss the various alternatives to euthanasia such as living wills. A living will is a written document, a witnessed oral statement and other ways, which contain evidence that outlines the treatment, which the person would like to receive if they become seriously ill/lose mental capacity. Believers of pro choice support this view as it has a trigger effect that allows you make your own decision (that you have previously written) when the time comes. If going by this, then euthanasia can be legalised because people can decide for themselves way in advance.

        Craig Donellan wrote an article called ‘The ethics of euthanasia’ (2005) explaining what living wills were, mainly giving a concise explanation on how beneficial and easy they are to get. Referring to websites such as ‘’. this shows how easy it is to get a living will and information is readily available.

        TENS machines are another alternative as they send electrical signals that simulate nerves to prevent pain. They are a good idea in theory, however when it comes to practise, in situations such as childbirth, they become nullified. They can be compared to placebos, as patients sometimes do not really know when they are receiving these signals and when they are not. This is not a valid substitute for euthanasia as in the latter stages of illness, when the patient is in chronic pain, euthanasia may seem like the better option at that point in time. Research, by the surgical unit of Westminster hospital, showed that they were ineffective at times of great pain such as childbirth and immense pain, “we conclude that TENS … does not reduce postoperative pain”. This asks a question, are they really a successful alternative to euthanasia for those in chronic pain?

        Hospices are there to attempt to relieve pain and provide support for a patient, their family and friends. There are only about 100 hospices in the UK so it is very difficult to get a place. The three main aims of hospices are, to relieve pain, to help face death and to care for emotional needs of family and friends. The hospice ethos is that of encouraging the patient to still have a fulfilling life in the time they have left and give up. Hospices however are expensive and some people do not want to be a financial burden on their family. Ultimately, we ask ourselves, can hospices, really lure us away from the ‘easy way out’ and provide such a service that substitutes our thoughts of stopping all the pain instantly?

SLIPPERY SLOPE ( I will break this information down later)

People think that if we legalise euthanasia, we will ultimately fall into the trap of involuntary euthanasia and doctors will have lots of power over our fate.                 It is not possible to register every act of euthanasia voluntary, as there would be some cases of involuntary where the patient has their destiny decided for them.        Elderly, weak, lonely and depressed people could feel that euthanasia is the right way to go and a doctor who is not particularly worried about his patients, rather his efficiency, he would encourage the act.

“This is called the slippery slope argument. In general form it says that if we allow something relatively harmless today, we may start a trend that results in something currently unthinkable becoming accepted.”

There is a significant difference between terminating someone’s life on mutual terms and simply going ahead and doing it without permission. “A 1998 study found that doctors who are cost-conscious and 'practice resource-conserving medicine' are significantly more likely to write a lethal prescription for terminally-ill patients”.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, there is no way we could accurately and conclusively predict the effects of euthanasia. If we were to claim that it would go badly, we can look at Netherlands or Switzerland and see that things run smoothly over there. We could equally use the example of Harold Shipman and argue that his type of abuse of the system can be repeated by other doctors but even more dramatically and often, as they would have the law to support them. Euthanasia is a topical issue that will constantly be discussed and put forward as an option by people. However, for now, people (such as the 163 to 88 doctors rejecting the ‘assisted dying for the terminally ill’ bill as explained previously) will favour opposing it, as at the moment, it seems as if the system currently intact is working and there is no decisive reason to change it to change it would.        

        The question still posed is why do people still want to turn to euthanasia if there are alternatives? The answer is that euthanasia will end it all and cause no burden on the families or prolong the person’s suffering no matter how the hospices make it feel or how much the TENS machine buffer the pain. Euthanasia is a realistic option based on its alternatives, it should be legalised.

        The argument that brings the euthanasia dispute to a dilemma, is what happens if a mistake is made? What happens if a patient it misdiagnosed, opts for euthanasia? We cannot bring someone back when they are dead but we can help them while they are alive. “Suffering, especially during the last moments of life, has a special place in God’s saving plan”.

References taken from the following sources:

• “Ethical Studies”                                Robert Bowie
• Any websites mentioned in the footnotes.