Philosophy Voluntary Euthanasia - Term Paper Example

? Philosophy – voluntary euthanasia Introduction “It’s not life. I’m already dead” said 43 year old Diane Pretty, the mother of two who wanted assistance to die (Barclay, 2002). Diane Pretty was suffering from motor neuron disease and her ‘life expectancy’ as identified by the doctor was “very poor”. (Verkaik, 2002) She wanted a dignified death for herself. Owing to the distressful life she was leading where her words could only be interpreted as grunts, she along with her husband filed a petition in the court to prevent Brian, her husband from any prosecution if he assisted her in committing suicide. Julie, the mother of Dianne even wanted her to have a peaceful death said, “I have watched everything go and now I am hoping she will have a peaceful death. You know I’d like someone to give her a pill or an injection” (Barclay, 2002). The court did not provide Brian with immunity and the illness took its expected course resulting Diane Pretty’s death in the hospital under the conditions, which she had wanted to avoid (Tulloch, 2005, p.89). On the moral grounds the result against the petition was a disrespect shown to the individual autonomy of a rational human being and against her free will. Free will and voluntary euthanasia The free will of Dianne was questionable under the ethics of philosophy whether such an action taken by her would justify her on the moral grounds. Considering some of the major characteristics which have been attributed to the almighty by different religions come down to one notion that is the omnipresent of God and that the Almighty has no limit. If that is true then God possesses the knowledge about human actions and the almighty governs the thoughts of individual hence the decision taken by human beings are always guided by the will of the almighty. The free will of a human being must be respected and her autonomy to take decisions must be honored. (Waller, 2008, p.197) Thus on the moral and ethical ground it can be argued that the willingness to die expressed by Dianne to avoid the death of indignity and the distressful condition which she was going through can be justified. Voluntary Euthanasia and Utilitarianism The utilitarian approach specifies that the act like stealing which is termed as immoral is not essentially right or wrong, they are of the opinion that the rightness and the wrongness of any action depend upon the non normal goods like pleasure or happiness or health or knowledge or satisfaction which is derived while being in the action. Hence arguing whether the act is right or wrong is not easy; sometimes the simplest act has the most complicated outcomes. (Waller, 2008, p.52) The utilitarian rules examine the possible regulations on the basis of the expected utility. Euthanasia, also termed as mercy killing, which is an act that involves the intentional killing of an individual who is entirely dependent upon other for the life support and facing a life of distress. In the case of Dianne Pretty the 43-year woman who was totally dependent on others for her life support the act of her to have a dignified death cannot be taken as against the ethics. The issue is that of a voluntary euthanasia, which is carried out as the person, himself or herself requests for it. The utilitarian approach focuses on the utility that an individual derives from an act. The Hedonistic utilitarian argues in the favor of the voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia arises from a critical situation where the person’s existence in pain brings more suffering for the person herself and the people watching her in that situation. In such a situation where the very existence of the person brings distress and anguish for himself or herself, voluntary euthanasia is justified. (Telfer, n. d) Peter Singer being a utilitarian himself argues that if the future life of the human being who wants to take the aid of euthanasia to end her life has more negative impacts than the positive impacts then killing can be justified than non-killing. If the elements of happiness is overpowered by the elements of unhappiness and the person is more frustrated rather than being satisfied voluntary euthanasia stands fully justified on the utilitarian ground. John Stuart Mill, the nineteenth century utilitarian argues by saying that individual human beings are the best adjudicators and guardians of their own well-being, hence when human beings are competent and capable of taking their own decisions they should be allowed to take the decision of living the life or not. It is they themselves who knows the worth of their life. The general reasons against killings are that the goods that life offers to a human being and under the circumstances when the goods are being outweighed by the bad then there are no reason to go against the decision of killing (Singer, 2003, p. 529). Virtue ethics and Euthanasia Virtue ethics does not necessarily focuses on the wrong action but on the character of the doer of the action. According to Aristotle, virtues are dispositions to make a choice between what is good for an individual and what is not. For him the virtue lies in the traits of that element which makes it beautiful. The theory is more about perfectionism where the excellent traits or the characteristics are identified. For instance for a virtual ethicist the focus would be more on particular instance or the situation which made him lie rather than the lie. (Virtue Ethics, n. d, p. 104) According to the ethic, stealing of anything, or lying or killing somebody will not be mentioned as wrong as because there certain principles that claim them to be wrong. Virtue ethics emphasizes on the fact that “mortality and the self are inseparable or intertwined.” (Begley, 2008, p. 434) The issue is not about whether killing a patient is morally right or wrong but it’s about the circumstances which lead one to take the decision and whether eventually he can behave sound and flourish. “The virtue approach represents a more holistic view of the person at the centre of the dilemma” (Begley, 2008, p. 437). To understand the perspective of the virtue ethics in case of euthanasia, the case of Dr. Cox is considered. The case gave rise to a clear tension between the virtue which is represented by sympathy and courage and the sense of duty represented by the codes of conduct, responsibility of doctor and the law. The court records, the testimonials that were available and the media reports of the whole event would clearly imply that the only motive of the doctor in taking the aid of voluntary active euthanasia was compassion. The type of death one wants and its experience remains a major factor of concern with some people, for many the quality of death is an important factor. There is always a necessity for respecting the dignity of the patients and their apprehension related to the experience, which is being unfolded in front of their family. Euthanatos which means dying well is a necessarily followed by eudaimonia – that is living well till death. Living in a better condition that is living well is defined in a way by each individual and the way in which that response to the situation they are presently going through. The court clarified that duty and compassion are overriding consideration and Dr. Cox was convicted. Dr.cox was solely out driven by empathy towards his patient Mrs. Boyes’ pain who was unable to bear it and was not in a condition to absorb diamorphine took the aid of euthanasia to end the suffering of the patient. (Begley, 2008, p. 438) It cannot be denied that both the patient and the doctor have an obligation towards the life that is lead and also towards the quality of death. The virtue ethics approach to a circumstance like this make the human kind rethink at the seriousness of the question of why is that the people agree to a legal system where a good person is punished while there is no voice against the evident callousness which arises from the sense of duty that restrain one to accept the “doing of the right thing”. (Begley, 2008, p. 444) The medical practitioner should have this much freedom where they can take the decision in favor of the patient in a situation which demands a compassionate action from their side rather than abiding by the sense of duty. The law is in conflict with the morally compassionate response which gives rise to a situation of tension among the family members, the professionals and the clients. The breaking of the law by the professionals is not suggested but the law should be flexible enough to accommodate the social and moral duties of the individual where he/she can act on the basis of compassion and sympathy. Eventually the existence of groups in the society, who think it unethical to kill someone, cannot be ignored and hence convincing them with the argument will not be possible. One also cannot ignore the situation when someone will not act by his her virtue but by the vices. Hence identification of the right motive is an important and significant criterion. (Begley, 2008, p. 444) If the practitioner is allowed to decide on the basis of virtue ethics, he is more likely to follow the path of allowing mercy death to his patient rather than let him or her lead the life in a vegetative state. It would be sheer cruelty on the victim to let him or her live in such a condition. Therefore, if someone can relieve him or her from this pain and impending suffering then it cannot be called unethical. Ethical Non objectivism and euthanasia Ethical non objectivists are of the opinion that there is no existence of the moral facts and the moral principles, apart from the fact that they are difficult to discover even human being might not be sure about depth of the matter, about what they are in reality. Hence there exists no objective moral truth that has to be discovered. Emotivism is one aspect of non-objectivism, which states that sentences, which exist to convey the ethical facts like stealing is wrong, are mere expressions of emotions. The main arguments for ethical non-objectivism is in favor of moral diversity and focuses on the range of the moral beliefs, which are, present within the cultures and also cross culturally. According to A.J. Ayer, there is no legitimate argument possible in favor of ethical issues and there is no existence of objectivism to argue about. Hence the killing of one person cannot be argued to be unethical on the moral grounds. The very notion of right or wrong or ethical and unethical depends on the situation and the circumstances where the individual is forced to take a step where he/ she wants to end the life so as to have a life of dignity. Both in the case of Dianne Pretty and Mrs. Boyes, they were totally dependent on other for their life support and were leading a life where they could not derive the basic satisfaction and pleasure of life. The situation they were in was an utter pain for them as well as to the people associated with them. When it comes to the notion of human rights the very fact cannot be denied that every human has the right to have a life of dignity and a death of dignity too. The argument supporting the voluntary euthanasia can be argued on the ground of individual autonomy. (Waller, 2008) Conclusion The fact that euthanasia is banned or illegal in several nations of the world including Britain does not prove the point that euthanasia is unethical (Lipman & Battin 1996). It is not necessary that the legal and ethical concept goes hand in hand, the issues are sometimes parallel never meets each other and that is exactly what happens in addressing the issue euthanasia. Hence what has been legally approved should not in any way dishearten the critical moral reflection of human beings. It is evident that laws of the society are derived from the ethics and morals that it follows, like stealing is illegal and unethical, at the same time the society faces problems when there is a clash between the two. The principles of ethics respect the individual autonomy of rational human being. A balanced approach is necessary to address the issue and evaluate the argument of both sides. The legal standards of a country need to take into account the ethical issues while enacting a law which should not only focus on the duty and professional practices of the doctor and the nurses but also on the moral and compassionate grounds. References: 1. Barclay, S, (2002), “It’s not life. I am dead”, guardian”, retrieved on May 24,2011 from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2002/may/12/featuresreview.review 2. Begley, A, (2008) Guilty But good: Defending voluntary active euthanasia from a virtue perspective,Nursing ethics, 15(4) retrieved on May 24, 2011 from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=958d453f-0d55-4cd3-ab06-e809df04d2f0%40sessionmgr114&vid=1&hid=110 3. Lipman, A.G. & M.P. Battin (1996), Drug use in assisted suicide and euthanasia, Routledge 4. Singer, P, (2003), Voluntary Euthanasia: A utilitarian perspective , Bioethics, 17(5-6), retrieved on May 24, 2011 from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2a91dd79-4f36-4c64-b0fc-8fd6c8d0a048%40sessionmgr115&vid=1&hid=110 5. Telfer, E, Philosophical approaches to the dilemma of death with dignity, retrieved on May 24,2011 from: http://www.euthanasia.cc/telfer.html 6. Tulloch, G. (2005), Euthanasia, choice and death, Edinburg University Press. 7. Verkaik, R, Diane Pretty loses case, while Miss B’ dies with dignity, “independent”, retrieved on May 24,2011 from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/diane-pretty-loses-case-while-miss-b-dies-with-dignity-658602.html 8. Waller, B. (2008), Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings and Contemporary Issues, Pearson Education Read More