The Value of Virtue Ethics in a World of Emotivism - Research Paper Example

? Physician Assisted Suicide: The Value of Virtue Ethics in a World of Emotivism Brian Jorgensen Ethics and Social Responsibility Alicia Brown 11-4-2013 Introduction We all have an image of how we would like our lives to end. We imagine being elderly, passing away peacefully and painlessly in our sleep. Behind us we leave a legacy of new generations, happy memories, and a fulfilling life. Unfortunately, in a modern era filled with warfare, criminal acts, and ever more virulent and dangerous diseases many of us may find our lives end quite differently. People are faced with realization that a diagnosed illness will end their lives every day. They are told there are no treatments and no cures that will save you. Death will come and be preceded by sicknesses and pain. When that is all one has left to look forward to many opt to leave this world on their own terms, while they are still well, before the pain and symptoms arrive, making their death a better end then the one offered by the disease or illness. Suicide has been the solution of many people who believe life is not worth living, unending disappointments, desperation, and depression wrapped in hopelessness. Today we consider suicide a sign of mental illness and it borders on being an illegal act. But this argument does not speak to the yearly statistics of slit wrists, hangings, and overdoses of unhappy, disillusioned, or medically depressed. We are talking about people of sound mind and body who are making a conscious, educated decision to accept death; but prefer not to suffer. This line of thinking has spawned the controversial practice known as Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS), also called euthanasia and “death with dignity.” These are medical care-givers who support the wishes of patients who have opted not to continue the long, suffering process leading to their death. There are a number of ethical issues presented by, both, side of the debate. There are those who support the practice and those who absolutely do not. Death comes for all, it is the only promise offered at birth; if you live eventually you will die. People die every day. Some people’s lives end in an instant, while others may languish in agony for months before their end. Why should some people be expected to suffer while others do not? Allowing a legal practice of Physician Assisted Suicide to the terminally ailing benefits a diverse society, acknowledging individuality, personal autonomy, and allows each person, as arbiter of their own lives and bodies, the right to determine the nature of their inevitable death when terminal illness is involved. History Suicide is not an invention of the modern world; it has been around since the beginnings of human civilization. In some cultures, like ancient Japan, suicide is considered an act of honor under certain conditions. However, the Western world, due to the influence of Christianity, equates suicide to sin and therefore an act in defiance of God. Because these same principles contributed to modern law suicide is considered abnormal behavior and must be prevented by force, sedation, and supervision in mental institutions. In fairness, many instances of individuals who have attempted to end their lives and failed, with help, may be grateful they were unsuccessful. Clinical depression can trigger unhealthy suicidal thoughts. However, Physician Assisted Suicide is a different concept all together. It is exclusively a procedure that would only be offered to those who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness that cannot be cured, the prognosis is pain and suffering, and they have less than a specific amount of time to live. It is about compassion and care for the inevitable suffering of others (Gholipour 1). Most people were unfamiliar with the concept of Physician Assisted Suicide until Dr Jack Kevorkian. The headlines across the country told the tale of “Dr Death” (Pickert 1). Since that time the ethical arguments of death with dignity versus a legal route to homicide have been unending. Over the years certain American states have determined that PAS should be considered and have adopted legislature, allowing for a Death with Dignity Act, which became effective in Oregon in 1997, and was shortly followed by two more states, Washington and Vermont. (Gholipour 1). The issue is hardly a simple one. There are numerous ethical, moral, and ideological points, aspects, and elements, however, some experts believe that the ethical argument can be best represented by three specific questions. It is the societal answers to these questions that prevent PAS from more universal consideration and acceptance (Ku 24-25). 1. Who is the owner of ourselves? 2. Should relieving suffering be a priority or is suffering occur for a reason? 3. Is suicide an individual choice? Discussion Answering these questions is nearly impossible, as each one may elicit a different opinion, and responses depending on who you ask. No one has quite the same perception of the world as others. The world is a certainly a different experience through the eyes of someone wealthy and successful, whose life is secure, safe, and comfortable than through the eyes of a homeless man in the dead of winter, shoeless and cold, seeking shelter from another, long, unending night. Philosophers, great thinkers, and scholars have all sought means to greater understanding of the human life experience and how our perceptions and behaviors fit into it. This has given birth to a number of theories intended to explain the nature of life, the world, and man’s purpose or place. Three such theories utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and deontology could all be applied to the issue of PAS; however, only one of the three seems designed and best suited to successfully address PAS in the modern society. Utilitarianism focuses on the “greater good” and seeks the outcomes where maximum happiness can be achieved as a whole. However, this speaks more so to societal happiness. The inference of conformism is something that simply does not seem beneficial in a diversified society. Deontology argues that actions are right as long as one is following the “rules of rationality” determined by society. Emotion is considered interference in the course of free will and reason. What is deemed “right” may not be “good,” but the rules are paramount to all else. This thinking leads, again, to a conformism of ideology that seem unlikely to benefit a diversified environment. This leaves the theory of Virtue Ethics, which allows an action to be right if the intention is good and preformed by a virtuous person. The ultimate results of a good person’s well intended actions are intrinsically good (Brown). That said, virtue ethics seems the most likely to suit an ethical solution to the issues of PAS. Applying virtue ethics to the ethical questions regarding this issue individually is the best means to understanding its value in this case. Do We Own Our Own Lives? Most of us would say yes without thinking. However, that may not be entirely true. If that were the case the ending our lives to avoid disease related suffering would not be a concern. In some ways we each belong to our society. Individual needs are often set aside to benefit the needs of the larger populace (Hunnell). Society cannot grasp why someone would not want to live, cannot allow people to commit suicide, and should not intervene in the life of another until it ends of natural causes or tragedy of accident. However, that is not exactly true either. As a society we interfere in life and death every day. We employ synthetic medical devices to prolong lives in healthcare settings. Medicine becomes the prevention of death regardless of suffering or quality of that life. Virtue ethics frees physicians and patients from societal norms. It allows the goodness and compassion of an act to be virtuous in nature; therefore good (Brown). Also, it allows for those judgments of good to be as diverse as a diversified society. If we own our lives, we should own our deaths. Should Ending Suffering Always Be a Priority or Is Suffering Sometimes Necessary? This statement reeks of judgment and inequality. It implies that the suffering experienced by someone is suffering that they may deserve, like Karma or divine punishment. If they weren’t meant to suffer they would not have been made to suffer in the first place. In turn inferring that to interfere is to stand in the way of their destiny. Most people have had a beloved pet at some time in their life. When that pet becomes aged, sickly, and horribly injured where no surgical interventions or treatment options will alleviate their suffering or improve their quality of life. Most owners’ option to have their pet euthanized to end their inevitable suffering. This is considered the “humane” thing to do in this situation. Yet, that same “humane” treatment we deny to ourselves. Does not that mean that allowing suffering is “inhumane?” Virtue ethics allows for one to decide for themselves, be they the physician performing or the patient requesting such a procedure, to determine the ethics and decide for themselves what is the best course of action for them; therefore the one providing the most good in that given situation (Brown). Is Suicide an Individual Choice? Yes, it is a choice, but it is a choice that comes with societal consequences. The desire to end one’s own life is considered, both, wrong and a sign of mental instability. Between the two it allows society to therefore question their ability to make choices for themselves. If you do not choose life then others will choose for you. You have the choice, as long as you make the “correct” one, the one that society deems fit. Again, the ethical issue at hand is not to defend suicide as practice for all, although an argument could be made, but in this specific circumstance, where the outcome of the suffering will be inevitable death. These people have not chosen to die, there conditions have already stolen that option, and they simply wish the right to decide the conditions of that inevitable end. Virtue ethics allow for multiple ethical and moral principles to exist together (Brown). The decisions of individuals is not a direct reflection of a whole, but autonomous beings given the respect to make the choices regarding their life and death. Unfortunately, the nature of present American society is that the majority tends to speak for all, per political structure, while boasting of freedom and autonomy. While there are many theoretical perspectives that can be applied to present society that stands in opposition of the benefit of virtue ethics. Ethical egoism holds that one’s actions should be whatever interests or desires motivate them. This level of selfish abandon prescribed would not coincide well with virtue ethic’s focus on personal morality not reckless disregard for personal rationale. Relativism is somewhat present in modern society. This theory explains that ethical truths are influenced. This speaks to the “majority rules” mentality. However, society seems to suffer more from the perspectives of emotivism. It refers to the nature of language and attitudes that can influence the actions and thoughts of listeners. For example, as in this case, suicide is a sin and it is wrong. If something is equated to being wrong and as a sin then it is intrinsically bad and is to be avoided (Schick Jr. and Vaughn ). Much of the emotivism perspectives in society can be seen in one of the greatest influences on modern culture, ideology, and philosophy. The Christian religious institution is celebrated by many and has presented an image of reality that people have embraced worldwide. However, they have not been embraced by everyone (Pickert 1). Again, in a diversified society, there must be more focus on the individual and their unique autonomy; rather than dictating moral rules arbitrarily applied to everyone. Emotivism manipulates perceptions. Virtue ethics still expects the best of an individual in their decision making and allows them to make their own ethical choices instead of adopting others (Brown). Today’s modern society is quite scientific, technological, and an increasingly interconnected global world full of differing mentalities, cultures, religions, ideologies, principles, and philosophies. How could we ever expect to always see the same ethical issues the same ways? When it comes to the suffering of people whose lives are ending; their desire to put an end to that should be a completely an individual choice. That is why such a diverse world will require a diversified resolution. The perspective of virtue ethics is a plausible approach to a solution that will protect personal choice. Ideally, it will very likely be a marrying of differing theories and the development of new perspectives that are better suited to the modern and diverse nature of society today. Conclusion In the end, death is an inevitability that each living thing must face. How we die is incalculable. When we die we just do not know, and why we died or must die will, likely, go unanswered. However when you can answer all of these questions with legitimate, diagnosed, medical certainty it changes your reality, generally, not for the better. The terminally ill must already tackle the physical aspects of their illness, be it debilitating or painful, but, also, the psychological and emotional variables involved in the confronting of one’s own mortality. They should not have to, also, fight for their right not to deserve to suffer a slow death. The debate will no doubt continue unresolved for some time to come. Perhaps it is time to create a new branch of medicine. “Euthanetics,” which would be branch of healthcare dedicated to end of life considerations. These physicians choose to participate and believe that easing pain an ending suffering is a part of their job as a caregiver (Boudreau 1). Ultimately, death may be inevitable, but suffering does not have to be; and should not be. Work Cited Boudreau, J. Donald. "Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: Can You Even Imagine Teaching Medical Students How to End Their Patients’ Lives?." Permanente Journal . 15.4 (2011): 1. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. . Brown, C,. "Ethical Theories Compared." Trinity University. Trinity University, 16 Apr 2001. Web. 31 Oct 2013. . Gholipour, Bahar. "Should Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal? Poll Shows Divide Among Experts." Huffington post. (2013): 1. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. . Hunnell, Denise. "Medical Journals Show Increasing Support for Euthanasia." Life News. Life News, 24 Aug 2012. Web. 31 Oct 2013. . Ku, Sarah. "Physician Assisted Suicide: Right to Life or Right to Death?." Journal of Undergraduate Nursing Writing. 4.1 (2010): 24-31. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. . Pickert, Kate. " A Brief History Of Assisted Suicide." Time Magazine. 3 Mar 2009: 1. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. . Schick Jr., Theodore, and Lewis Vaughn. Doing Philosophy. 4th. online: McGraw Hill Companies, 2010. eBook. . Read More