Arguments against and for Euthanasia - Essay Example

?Introduction Euthanasia is Greek for “happy death,” and involves the active killing of another because one's life is not worth living The practicehas been widely legalized throughout Europe, although the United States has yet to legalize it.2 For instance, in Europe, as of 2005, Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland have all legalized the practice.3 There are two kinds of euthanasia – active and passive. In active euthanasia, according to Touyz and Touyz (2011), there is action which hastens death. In passive euthanasia, no action is taken to prolong life, and death occurs naturally.4 In Great Britain, Lord Joffe has introduced a bill which would legalize assisted dying.5 Although this bill was introduced in 2004, it has not had a chance of passing until recently. The reasons for this is that society has changed with respect to the issues surrounding euthanasia. This paper will examine the arguments against euthanasia, and the arguments in favor of it, and make a conclusion about whether or not euthanasia should be legalized in Great Britain. Arguments against Euthanasia There is not a doubt that Christianity, as a religion, has profoundly influenced the debate surrounding the right to die. However, before Christianity was established, the practice was condoned, even honored.  In Ancient Greece, one could apply to a tribunal for the right to die, and, if successful, would be given hemlock to ingest.  The practice was even the subject of parties – the elderly and the infirm would ingest their poison at a banquet that honored their lives .6  This changed with the beginning of Christianity, and Christianity, as a religion, was the basis of outlawing the practice.  Early Christian thinkers, such as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine were influential, describing euthanasia as a grave sin. The church continued to influence the debate, even during a period of time during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment of the 18th Century, in which the practices resurged, yet were kept in abeyance by the Church.7 The Church’s reasoning on the rejection of euthanasia is that the act is inherently wrong. Therefore, because of the fundamental objection to the practice, the Church remains opposed, no matter how much good may come out of it.8  Christianity also believes that it is a sin because life is a gift from God, and, unless one is defending one’s own life, or defending others, life is not to be taken away.  According to this view, man is made in God’s image, so it is not for man to end his own life.9  This is not to say that the Church advocates for keeping someone alive by any means possible. In fact, the official Christian perspective on heroic measures to sustain life is that these measures should not be taken. Denying or withdrawing heroic measures is differentiated from euthanasia because one, euthanasia, is actively ending life and the other, denying heroic measures, is simply letting somebody die. Also, one is intended, and the other is unintended.10  Because the official Christian perspective on heroic measures is clear, this principle would encompass “Do Not Resuscitate Orders” and removing patients from ventilators.11  Therefore, the official Christian stance on euthanasia is that it is forbidden. According to Lin (2003), another reason why the Church has taken this stance is because of the Sixth Commandment, which is “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”  This Commandment, in turn, is based on the view that only God has the power of life and death, and euthanasia effectively usurps this authority.12 St. Thomas Aquinas based his objections to the practice on this view, citing Deuteronomy 32:39, which states that God “will kill…and will make to live.”13 Hatzinikolaou (2003) bases his objections on the respect for the dying process. According to him, death is sacred and the last moments of a person’s life are the moments which should be respected.  It is during these moments, according to Hatzinikolaou (2003) that man has the chance to repent and prepare for his soul to be judged.  It is also a time for a communion with God.  Therefore, death is sacred and mysterious, and should not be ended by one’s own hand. To do so would be an affront to personal dignity, as it is effectively reducing the act of dying to something that is mechanical and impure. That said, Hatzinikolaou (2003), in accordance with the Christian Church, also believes that heroic measures should not be taken to keep someone alive. To do so is just as wrong as hastening death through euthanasia, because heroic measures, as with euthanasia, also robs an individual of their dignity in dying.14 The proverbial “slippery slope” is the other arguments favored by Christians.  In other words, advocating and condoning euthanasia is one step down the path to where individuals will be killed, against their will, such as in Nazi Germany.  After all, the Nazis authorized euthanasia for cases of individuals in extreme pain, then the practice was used to kill unwanted individuals, then the practice was used for all non-Germans.15 Just like with Nazis, opponents of assisted suicide state that legalizing the practice would open the door to evil practices. Indeed, the case of the Netherlands might create fodder for the individuals who are arguing against the practice, based upon the “slippery slope” argument, as there apparently has been a problem in that country with regards to euthanasia.16 According to Vanston (2011), there are 49,000 acts of euthanasia in that country per year, and there are 130,000 total deaths each year in that country. This means that euthanasia is responsible for around 38% of total yearly deaths in the Netherlands. Moreover,according to one report, the Remmelink Report, thousands of the deaths by euthanasia occurred without the patient's consent.17 Moreover, there is indication that British Doctors do not support euthanasia, even as the practice in Britain has become more popular over time. According to Seale (2009), who conducted an empirical study of almost 77,000 British doctors, who answered questionnaires, a clear majority do not support assisted suicide. Tellingly, the doctors who are most against the practice of euthanasia are those doctors who specialize in geriatrics.18 This is consistent with studies which have been conducted in Norway,19 New Zealand,20 the Netherlands,21 Finland,22 Spain,23 and Australia.24 The main arguments that physicians have against the practice is that it violates the Hippocratic Oath, as well as violate the doctor-patient relationship and the doctor's role in curing disease.25 Arguments for Euthanasia Moral Arguments The major argument in favor of euthanasia is the argument for individual autonomy. One has the right to control one’s own body and one’s own destiny, and dying as one wishes should be a part of the pantheon of these basic rights.26 For example, in the play Whose Life Is It Anyway?, a paralyzed man wishes to die in peace, while his primary doctor, Dr. Emerson, blocks this effort, stating that, as a doctor, he must keep his patients alive, and what the patient might wish is virtually irrelevant. This play balances the morals and arguments on either side – on the one side, the moral thing to do would be to keep Ken alive, because life is sacred. On the other side, the argument is that it is immoral to go against a patient's wishes, and violate his dignity and freedom to choose for himself. Society must honor the individual right to decide what to do with his own life and own body, and it is basically a conflict of morals which as the heart of this play.27 Moreover, while the anti-euthanasia voices state that dignity is a reason for outlawing the practice, others say that dignity should be the reason for legalizing. One such individual is Nayernouri (2011), who is a neurosurgeon.  She states that patients should be able to elect for euthanasia if the time has come where the patient has no chance of survival, is in a great deal of pain, and is a burden to his or her family.  She also does not countenance the argument that euthanasia robs the person of time in which a cure might be found for his or her illness, especially in the cases of individuals suffering from Huntington’s Disease and advanced cancer, as the cures for these diseases is too far off in the future, therefore the dying patient is unlikely to benefit from the cures when they are discovered.  Navernouri (2011) also does not advocate for religious cures for terminal diseases, stating that, of the 12 million individuals who visit Lourdes (a holy site in which the Virgin Mary was sighted), hoping for a cure, only 65 have been deemed by the Vatican as being miraculously cured   As for religious cures of terminal diseases, Nayernouri states that 200 million individuals have made a pilgrimage to Lourdes, which is a holy site upon which the apparition of the Virgin Mary was sited. Of these 200 million, there have been 12 million who have visited the site hoping for a cure for their disease. Of these 12 million, only 65 have been recognized as having been miraculously cured, as designated by the Vatican, only three of these have been cured of cancer and none have been cured of a spinal cord injury.28 Even many Christians condone the practice of euthanasia, some using Scripture to support their beliefs.  For instance, Christians who condone euthanasia might do so by reasoning that the Sixth Commandment is not a blanket condemnation against killing.  After all, capital punishment, self-defense, defense of others and war are all exceptions to the basic rule which are observed by multitudes of Christians.  Therefore, since “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is not a blanket condemnation, but, rather, is interpreted according to individual conscience and individual church word, euthanasia might also be considered an exception. Like the other exceptions, euthanasia is not necessarily considered to be wrongful killing.  Moreover, God’s purpose is fulfilled through euthanasia, as the practice reunites the individual with God, therefore the practice is considered to be part of the greater good.29 Needless suffering forms another basis for the advocating of the practice.  According to this reasoning, God does not want man to suffer, and the amount of suffering that an individual endures does not impact whether or not that individual goes to heaven. Also, since God does not want man to suffer, euthanasia carries out God’s purpose in that it ends suffering. Christ also alleviated suffering whenever he could, therefore Christ would countenance the practice of euthanasia, on the basis that, like Christ himself, it alleviates suffering.30 Self-sacrifice forms another basis for individual Christians to advocate for the practice of euthanasia.  According to Morgan, Jesus advocated for self-sacrifice.  Morgan states that an individual who is close to death is a burden to his or her family, while amassing medical bills which would be left to the family to pay.  Precious health care resources are also being spent, futilely, on keeping this person alive.  This drains the public health system or private insurance, therefore the individual is a burden to society, in general.  It would therefore be an act of self-sacrifice, according to Morgan, to end one’s own life through euthanasia, and, since Jesus advocated for self-sacrifice, the practice would be an example of a principle by which Christ lived.31 Another argument in favor of legalization is that society outlaws the practice for no other reason than what White (2009) describes as a “moral panic.”32According to Cohen (1972), moral panic occurs in every society, and the reason why it occurs is that something becomes a threat that society deems worthy of fighting. Often these panics die down, but sometimes, as in the case of many society's view of assisted suicide, it becomes a part of the fabric of society.33 Moral panic often occurs when an individual or an event raises an alarm, and the societal response to this individual or event is disproportionate to the actual harm presented. White (2009) argues that Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the Michigan doctor who assisted in numerous deaths, was the rallying point for the moral panic surrounding assisted suicide, and that the societal response to him was disproportionate.34 Society has been evolving on the question of the right to die, argues Vanston, in part because of the medical advances which keep people alive, long past the time that they would have lived in earlier generations. With the medical advances, argues Vanston, the act of dying is no longer a short process. Rather, dying can take years of suffering, as opposed to only taking a few days. So, now patients are “asking if they have a right to seek the end of their own life, not simply passively, but at times even actively.”35 Legal Arguments The argument in favor of legalized euthanasia is that everybody has a right to die. That said, Putnam36 states that, in order to understand the “right” to die, one must understand other legal terminologies which have been confused with rights. For instance, Putnam states that “rights” are different from “privileges.” If somebody deprives somebody else of their “right,” than that person would have a claim against the one who deprives. On the other hand, “privileges” do not create a duty to provide – depriving somebody of their privilege does not carry the same legal weight as depriving somebody of their rights, because rights carry a duty to act, and privileges do not. “Powers” is another concept put forth by Putnam. “Powers” “are the kind of rights that enable the persons who hold them to bring about changes in the moral status of another.”37 “Immunities” is another concept, and immunities are essentially protections against interference in exercising powers. “Cluster-rights” is an example of more than one right coming into play simultaneously.38 Putnam therefore puts the legal arguments regarding the right do die under the rubric of the above concepts. She states that individuals have a power-right to refuse treatment, and the privilege-right not to seek treatment in the first place. We all have a claim-right as well, she states, for there is a duty for others to respect one's wishes with this regard. To render treatment when treatment is unwanted is tantamount to unwanted touching and trespass. Of course, as Putnam states, these are all rights which focus on the right to refuse treatment, which is not active euthanasia, per se. Putnam goes on to state that there is the possibility that one has the privilege right to take one's own life, on the assumption that the individual does not have the duty to not take actions to end one's own life. One also has a claim-right to end one's own life, because everyone has a claim-right to act autonomously. Immunity rights also extend to the act of suicide, as nobody has the right to interfere with one's autonomy. That said, there is not any right to assisted suicide, according to Putnam.39 Benatar (2010) would state that the right to assisted suicide would be an immunity right, in that, if one desires assisted suicide, there is not a right to prevent others from giving that individual assistance.40 One may also argue that the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 3, would state that euthanasia should be legalized. This article specifically states that individuals are not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.41 Since the argument is that dying in pain, while being a burden on your family is cruel and degrading, an individual should have the right to elect for assisted suicide, in order to avoid being subjected to this kind of treatment. Conclusion Assisted dying should be legalized, simply because it is a matter of autonomy. Simply put, one has control over one's own person, and, therefore, nobody should interfere with personal decisions which do not directly affect other people. There should be an immunity right to die with assistance, as Benatar (2010) would claim, because others should not have the right to interfere with this assistance. Moreover, sometimes it is simply cruel to essentially force somebody to stay alive and live with a painful disease, with no hope for a cure. That said, there is the powerful argument of the “slippery slope,” and the reports from the Netherlands, if they are true, should give society pause. In other words, there must be powerful safeguards so that nobody is euthanized without consent, and doctors must not be coerced into the practice. However, there is not a reason to believe that doctors could be coerced into the practice, any more than they can be coerced into performing abortions. Therefore, as long as there are safeguards in place, and doctors are not forced into the practice, there is not a reason to deny individuals the right to die with dignity.   Bibliography Biggar, N. (2004) Aiming to Kill: The Ethics of Suicide and Euthanasia. London: Darton, Longman & Todd. Lavi, S. (2005) The Modern Art of Dying: A History of Euthanasia in the United States. Princeton: Prince University Press. Grayling, A. (2005) “Right to Die: The moral basis of the right to die is the right to good quality life.” British Medical Journal, vol. 330, p. 799. Touyz, L. & Touyz, S. (2011) “An appraisal of life's terminal phases and euthanasia and the right to die,” Current Oncology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 65-66. Alton, D. (2012) “Euthanasia – the Joffe Bill.” Available at: http://davidalton.net/2012/03/21/euthanasia-the-joffe-bill-2004/ Fontana, J. (2002) “Rational Suicide in the Terminally Ill,” Journal of Nursing Scholarship, vol. 34, no. 2: pp. 147-151. Keown, D. & Keown, J. (1995) “Killing, Karma and Caring: Euthanasia in Buddhism and Christianity,” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 21: pp. 265-269. Sullivan, D. (2005) “Euthanasia Verses Letting Die: Christian Decision-Making in Terminal Patients,” Ethics and Medicine, vol. 21, no. 2: pp. 1-15. Lin, L. (2003) “A Moral and Scriptural Assessment of Euthanasia and the Sanctity of Life: Is Euthanasia Ever Justified?” Available at: http://www3.dbu.edu/naugle/pdf/pew_papers/2003_luke_lin.pdf Schrader, J. (2010) “Argument for the Legalization of Active Euthanasia,” Available at: http://www.galleryofwriting.org/conferences/galleryofwriting/uploads_converted/KEY_2 274104/2274104.pdf Hatzinikolaou, N. (2003) “Prolonging Life or Hindering Death? An Orthodox Perspective on Death, Dying and Euthanasia,” Christian Bioethics, vol. 9, no. 2: pp. 187-201. Morgan, P. “Active Euthanasia in Terms of the Common Good.” Available at: http://www.zygoncenter.org/studentsymposium/pdfs/papers03/symposium03_Morgan.pdf Egan, A. (2008) “Should the state support the right to die?” South African Journal of Bioethics and Law, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 47-52. Vanston, A. (2011) “When the End of the Rope Isn't Far Enough: At What Point Should a Patient Have a Right to Die?” Available at: http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userImages/whadra/Page_7162/Alexander%20Ben%20Vanston,%20At%20What%20Point%20Should%20a%20Patient%20Have%20a%20Right%20to%20Die.pdf Seale, C. (2009) “Legalisation of Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide: Survey of Doctor's Attitudes,” Palliative Medicine, vol. 00, pp. 1-8. Forde, R., Aasland, O. & Falkum, E. (1997) “The ethics of euthanasia: Attitudes and practice among Norwegian physicians,” Social Science Medicine, vol. 145, pp. 887-892. Mitchell, K. & Owen, R. (2004) “Judgements of laypersons and general practitioners on justifiability and legality of providing assistance to die to a terminally ill patient: A view from New Zealand,” Patient Educational Counsel, vol. 54, pp. 15-20. Rietjens, J., van der Heide, A., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B., van der Maas, P., van der Wal, G. (2005) “A comparison of attitudes towards end-of-life decisions: Survey among the Dutch general public and physicians,” Social Science Medicine, vol. 61, pp. 1723-1732. Ryananen, O, Myllkangas, M., Viren, M. & Heino, H. (2002) “Attitudes towards euthanasia among physicians, nurses and the general public in Finland,” Public Health, vol. 116, pp. 322-331. Suarez-Almazor, M., Belzille, M. & Bruera, E. (1997) Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: A comparative survey of physicians, terminally ill cancer patients, and the general population,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 15, pp. 418-427. Steinberg, M., Cartwright, C., MacDonald, S., Najman, J. & Williams, G. (2006) “Attitudes towards euthanasia among physicians, nurses and the general public in Finland,” Public Health, vol. 116, pp. 322-331. Baumrin, B. (1998) “Physician, stay thy hand!” In Battin, M., Rhodes, R., Silvers, A. eds. Physician Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Debate. New York: Routledge, pp. 324-333. Clark, B. (1978) Whose Life Is It Anyway? (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company). Nayernouri, T. (2011) “Euthanasia, Terminal Illness and the Quality of Life,” Archives of Iranian Medicine, vol. 14, no. 1: pp. 54-55. Lin, L. (2003) “A Moral and Scriptural Assessment of Euthanasia and the Sanctity of Life: Is Euthanasia Ever Justified?” Available at: http://www3.dbu.edu/naugle/pdf/pew_papers/2003_luke_lin.pdf White, D. (2009) “The right to die debate: The demonization of Dr. Kevorkian and the Creation of a Moral Panic Surrounding the Physician-Assisted Suicide of the United States.” Honors Scholar Thesis, Paper 69. Available at: http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/srhonors_theses/69 Cohen, S. (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creations of Mods and Rockers. Oxford: Martin Robinson. Putnam, C. (2009) “What kind of right is the right to die?” European Journal of Mental Health, vol. 4, pp. 165-180/ Benatar, D. (2010) “Should there be a legal right to die?” Current Oncology, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 2-3. ECHR Article 2. Read More