The Assisted Suicide - Term Paper Example

?Running Head: ASSISTED SUICIDE ASSISTED SUICIDE Part I The term “assisted suicide” refers to a “physician writing a prescription for a patient, typically for a lethal amount of barbiturates, which the patient ingests in the physician’s absence when and if he chooses to do so” (Szasz, 1999, p. 91). The term “voluntary euthanasia” refers to a “physician putting a patient to sleep, not for the purpose of inducing anesthesia for surgery or otherwise relieving pain, but for the purpose of causing death by injecting a lethal drug” (ibid). In this paper these two terms are investigated as one issue. Euthanasia is considered here as a moral evil, and should not be permitted by law, even in the cases specified in the standard permission. Euthanasia or assisted suicide can be any action aimed at putting an end to life of any person, to meet his/her own accord, and executed by a disinterested person. The term “euthanasia” was first coined by Francis Bacon in the 17th century for the definition of “easy death”, and in the 19th century it has come to mean “to kill someone out of pity.” This is a question of premeditated murder in order to alleviate unnecessary suffering. In this case, there is no more ambiguous word than “euthanasia.” The very idea of ??euthanasia was born a long time ago. But from the time of Hippocrates to the present day traditional medical ethics includes a ban: “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan…” (The Hippocratic Oath) More recently, however, doctors seem increasingly ready to come to this practice, at least when the patient himself asks about death. How this tendency should be considered? Is it a release from outdated restrictions or a certain permissiveness, which is both wrong from a moral point of view, and dangerous in practice? Literally, the term “euthanasia” is translated as a “good death” but the term has come to signify not so much “good” death itself, as its infliction. “Euthanasia” can be defined as “the killing of another person for his alleged good” with his consent (voluntary euthanasia), or without consent or even against the will of this person (“involuntary” and “forced” euthanasia). “Killing” means an act or admission of action, chosen with the aim of depriving a person of life, i.e., irrespective of whether direct or indirect impact. Here there is some terminological confusion (in the opinion of some researchers, deliberately provoked by supporters of euthanasia) which occurred under the influence of various kinds of statements concerning understanding of this term, putting on the same level “letting die” (negative or passive euthanasia) and “assisting to die” (active or real euthanasia). This confusion is not harmless; it is maintained deliberately in order to bring doctors and public opinion to a false dilemma: either you are humane and able to sympathize with your neighbor, and thus have to step over the forbidden (cause death); or you put the abstract dogma above simple human sympathy, and thus will not stop even before going to prolong the needless suffering which you yourself would not have survived (Keown, 2002, pp. 9-15). In which case we can speak of assisted suicide or euthanasia? Assisted suicide means only intentional murder. In one case, the life of a hopelessly terminally ill person is taken away, in order to save him/her from unnecessary suffering – either through direct intervention (e.g., injection of barbiturates), or leaving a person to die by stopping to feed the patient. In another case, the life of a newborn child with severe physical disabilities is taken, when the child is directly killed or condemned to certain death, e.g., by stopping the supply of food and basic treatment only in order not to inflict new pain to his/her parents. Hence, euthanasia or assisted suicide is itself put on the level of intentions: the term euthanasia is used only when there is an intention to take the life of the person or to speed up his/her death; euthanasia is not in question, when doctors are trying to alleviate the suffering of any person who is in the final stage of serious illness by giving him/her drugs, which only indirectly can accelerate the physiological process of dying. In the latter case there is no goal to assist the patient to die, but try to reduce his/her pain with drugs that can accelerate the end only as a side effect. Death here is not provoked intentionally, directly, but is a possible consequence of pain therapy. Talking about euthanasia raises two questions: moral (What can be said about the character of a person committing such acts?) and legal (Should such actions be against the law?). St. Thomas Aquinas argues that in general human law must be based on natural law: banning people from doing what is not wrong for them is not lawmaking, but tyranny. But, he continues, morality and ideal law are not identical (Aquinas, 1988). Sometimes, what is morally wrong is not practical to be legally prohibited. There is a limit to what government can ban the bad people. At the same time, what is allowed by morality may be prohibited by law, because sometimes for the common good we must abandon our rights. Some argue that, although euthanasia is immoral, it should not be prohibited by law. Two arguments, which are commonly cited as an argument against the use of criminal sanctions—first, very high costs of implementation of these sanctions, and second, the prospect of disobedience is so possible that it is already undermining general respect for the law—apparently cannot be applied in this case. Others argue that, although euthanasia is not always wrong, it should not be allowed by law. One variant of this argument asserts that euthanasia is morally acceptable only in rare cases, but even then it should be banned, as this practice is so easy to abuse that legalizing euthanasia will do more harm than good. Another version says that legalization puts the elderly in a difficult position of choice: either continue to live or get out of the way by death – the choice which must not be offered to any person. More common is the view that euthanasia is morally permissible only in exceptional cases, but in such cases it should be legalized. Recent legislative initiatives in the countries where it is permitted allow euthanasia in exceptional cases. This paper defends the opinion, that the intentional killing of an innocent is always a moral evil. Euthanasia and assisted suicide is the intentional killing of an innocent person. Hence, euthanasia is a moral evil. Part II Advocates of euthanasia may appeal to the fact that the above given reasoning implies a distinction between justified and unjustified killing. Why “innocent person”? On what basis the difference is made? If some kinds of killing are justified, why cannot—at least in some circumstances—voluntary euthanasia be justified? It is known that two types of murder are accepted even by the majority of the most zealous opponents of euthanasia – self-defense and punishment. None of them is unfair; in fact, none of them is wrong. Can we consider voluntary euthanasia as a third form of justified killing? There are two arguments that euthanasia is beyond unjust murder, which are based on two key assertions. First, condition of some people is so bad that they would rather die than continue living. A striking example of this situation are those patients who suffer from severe pain or are doomed to a life of abject dependence on others, even to meet the most basic needs. Here, as beneficiaries of euthanasia, terminally ill patients and those who are in permanent vegetative state are often included. The second claim is that helping anyone to improve his/her position is always morally permissible. If the killing improves anyone’s position, and the person himself wants to be deprived of life, such killing cannot cause undeserved harm to this person. How can we consider this an act as injustice? How can it be wrong? And then, what is voluntary euthanasia, if not this? This argument has some drawbacks, especially when it is used to justify the generally accepted solution. There is harm inflicted to a guilty or malicious person (death) – a necessary means of achieving the common good. Because of their actions against the common good such people lose their right to a private benefit to the extent necessary to restore a common one. Nothing like this can be said about euthanasia. There is no contradiction between the good of the sufferer, crippled or terminally ill, and the common good. There is no action on their part, on the basis of which their deaths should or even could, be declared a payback for something. Is the case of euthanasia a situation when we have to choose between two evils? If one thing is worse than another, what’s wrong in choosing the lesser evil? Part III We can give three objections in favor of euthanasia and against its prohibition. Firstly, as the pain associated with continuation of life is evil, does the physician inflict less evil, refusing to carry out voluntary euthanasia than doing it? The answer is: No! Refusal to carry out euthanasia means the decision to bear the pain; it is not the choice of pain itself. Although, the pain itself is bad and causing it is evil, the decision to bear the pain is virtuous. This is an act of resistance. Secondly, are the death penalty and deadly acts of self-defense the choice of death? The issue of self-defense is not quite clear. The defender may intend only to stop the attacker, even though he knows that the use of the chosen means is dangerous for the attacker. But there is no such ambiguity in the death penalty. The executioner has a definite intention to kill the convicted person. But because of his atrocities the offender is in a very paradoxical and almost unique position. Only in this case a deliberate giving up life—not taking the risk, but a direct denial of life—is not a morally wrong action. Thirdly, is the choice of the lesser of two evils morally preferable in the situation where only evil is in prospect? If the death of the innocent and the constant pain are both evil, then the choice (and the desire for) one of these means aspiration for evil: choosing the action that is evil in relation to its purpose. Choosing death (i.e. killing), as opposed to simple further reconciliation with the futility of prolonging life and allowing death to come, we make a mistake. Any act of euthanasia, as a choice of death, falls under this ban. In the basis of the generally accepted permission of euthanasia is the principle of self-government, the principle that every person has the right to make his/her own decision about the actions that affect solely him or her. What does the right to self-government tell about other types of pain and humiliation? How about the moral sufferings? How about the humiliation not in the field of restricted activity and dependence, but in the field of guilt or shame? Of course, sometimes depression can be avoided by taking appropriate medications. But in the same way you can get rid of physical pain. Sufferings on their own give birth to sympathy: kill the dog which writhes in pain, finish off the condemned to death. Can someone refuse this act of mercy? In fact, even some strong Catholics felt obliged to shorten the suffering of their neighbor. But the pity in itself is ambiguous: of course, very often the pain is unbearable, but often it is even more unbearable for those who are close to the patient. “Relieving” the patient from pain, they often relieve themselves from the suffering. Is the patient’s freedom of choice respected in this case? The cry for help is met with a fatal blow. To cause death means to rid, especially oneself, from having to listen to this cry, because behind the words “kill me” there is a plea: “share my pain and help me!” Humanly, it is always more difficult to “follow” the patient in his suffering, than to kill him. Philosopher Margaret Battin, one of the leading advocates of assisted suicide, defends suicide in one case, saying that it leaves less examples of human degradation in this world (Battin, 2000, p.415). If suicide of the recently widowed woman who suffers from glaucoma and cancer, leaves less examples of human degradation in this world, how would the woman’s refusal to commit suicide be seen? The logical answer is obvious: one more example of human degradation would remain in the world! Thus, like a guillotine, euthanasia may fall into the hands of people less human than its inventors. Such occasions already happened in the history of mankind. The arguments given above allow two important conclusions. First, euthanasia (as an example of killing the innocent) is a moral evil, and should not be permitted by law, even in the cases specified in the standard permission. Second, a common authorization for euthanasia is dangerously unstable. One argument in favor of it admits killing not only on the basis of generally accepted medical reasons, but also in cases of depression, shame and self-sacrifice. This argument allows euthanasia not only for those who want to die, but for those who do not want. Hence, assisted suicide and euthanasia are absolutely unacceptable. Bibliography Aquinas, Thomas. (1988). On Law, Morality and Politics. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co. Battin, Margaret. (2000). “Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law. Volume 25, Number 2, April 2000, pp. 415-430 Keown, John. (2002). Euthanasia, Ethics, and Public Policy: An Argument against Legalisation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Szasz, Thomas. (1999). Fatal Freedom: The Ethics and Politics of Suicide. Westport, CT: Praeger. The Hippocratic Oath. Translated by Michael North, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Retrieved 2011-15-04 from Read More