Should Euthanasia Be Legalized Responding to Peter Singers Taking Life: Humans - Essay Example

? SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE LEGALIZED? RESPONDING TO PETER SINGER’S TAKING LIFE: HUMANS 13 July Should Euthanasia Be Legalized? Responding to Peter Singer’s Taking Life: Humans Introduction The concept of euthanasia stirs the hearts and minds of millions in all parts of the world. Much has been written and said about the ethical implications of euthanasia and its effects on society. An explosion of research into euthanasia is justified by changes in the global ethical philosophy: more and more countries recognize the need and relevance of euthanasia as an instrument of saving people from physical pains. Peter Singer is one of those who defend the right of individuals for death. More specifically, it is not the right to die but the right to choose between life and death. Utilitarian philosophy justifies the use of euthanasia as the way to achieve collective wellbeing and public happiness. Unfortunately, Singer’s vision of euthanasia asks more questions than it can reasonably answer and, objectively, leaves the issue of euthanasia unresolved. A convinced utilitarian, in Taking Life: Humans Peter Singer presents his vision of the euthanasia problem. According to Singer (1993), “euthanasia means a gentle and easy death, but it is not used to refer to the killing of those who are incurably ill and in great pain or distress, for the sake of those killed, and in order to spare them further suffering or distress”. That is, in Singer’s view, euthanasia is merely an instrument of saving people from unnecessary sufferings and has nothing to do with the act of murder. Singer (1993) believes that euthanasia should not be treated with horror. Rather, it is high time people abandoned their commitment to the sanctity of life and assumed a new picture of reality, in which suffering and pain impedes the development of progressive society and in which only euthanasia has a potential to give people another chance to become happy (Singer, 1993). Singer discusses three types of euthanasia and relies on utilitarian principles to justify them all. The argument sounds extremely compelling, but Singer’s (1993) presentation of the problem is not without fallacies. The relevance of almost everything in Singer’s article is easily questioned; most Singer’s arguments leave sufficient room for further ethical analysis. Apparently, Singer grounds his observations and arguments on the principles of inductive reasoning – from the specific to the general. Simply stated, Singer (1993) uses cases and detailed examples to devise the basic laws of ethics related to the problem of euthanasia. Given the complexity of the issue, the use of inductive approaches to ethical reasoning looks perfectly justified. To some extent, Singer’s (1993) logic also reflects that of other philosophers, including Immanuel Kant, who claimed that being ethical was the same as acting in ways that would turn such actions into a universal law. As a result, Singer (1993) tries to accomplish a task that used to be unachievable – to develop a universal ethical vision of euthanasia, which will help to justify voluntary and non-voluntary killing of humans, in order to reduce their physical sufferings. Unfortunately, that Singer (1993) relies on utilitarian thinking also implies that he omits or consciously avoids discussing the issue of human rights and their violations. This is particularly the case of non-voluntary euthanasia, when individuals who are terminally ill are willing to die but are neither asked about it nor give their consent to leave this world for good. The right to life is an integral element of human development and growth. It is universal and intact. To abandon the rules of sanctity of life is the same as to throw the whole society into ethical chaos. Until present, the right to life has acted as strong glue, holding international society and protecting it from anarchy and ethical failures. Any attempt to abandon these principles, like Singer (1993) wants it will inevitably break the current order of things. Non-voluntary euthanasia will become a good cover for thousands of murders committed for material and other purposes. What can happen if non-voluntary euthanasia becomes legal and ethically justified is difficult to imagine. These difficulties, however, do not deny humans the right to choose between life and death, in case they have mental abilities needed to make such a decision. Euthanasia is not merely a matter of life vs. death but a matter of free and independent choice, which every individual wants to have. No one knows what terminally people feel when they experience pain and sufferings; and when this pain and sufferings become imminent and never-ending, the desire to die can become even stronger. Utilitarian thinking is not the only fallacy in Singer’s argument. The most controversial is Singer’s (1993) argument concerning disabled children and those born with serious health problems. Singer (1993) believes that disabled infants lack the right to life characteristic of normal infants. Moreover, Singer (1993) suggests that euthanasia of disabled infants is not about their right to life or the lack thereof, but about the attitudes of parents who fail to experience the sense of happiness about having a disabled infant. The current state of societal reality does not support this claim. Certainly, Singer’s opinion about euthanasia and the rights of disabled children is justified by his striving to create a society of healthy individuals, who do not have to pay for other people’s illnesses and eliminate everyone, who was unlucky to be born disabled. However, such order of things resembles a horror movie. Who said that disabled infants do not have the right to life? No disability can justify the use of euthanasia against children. Disabled infants, whatever their disability, have the right to live; moreover, they have the right to live normal life to the extent, which is physically possible. Any welfare society is obligated to assume responsibility for growing disabled individuals and care for them, simply because everyone, irrespective of their health status, has the right to live. Singer’s argument raises the question of euthanasia against disabled infants. The word “against” is used consciously, since euthanasia is always against ethics and morality, when it comes to children. The fact is in that, given recent advances in medicine, no adult can state with confidence that a child has no single chance to survive. With few exceptions, the prevailing majority of infant disabilities can be dealt with, even if they require extensive financial and moral resources. Certainly, not all parents have resources necessary to cure their children, but killing a child can never make society happier. Rather, it is the society’s striving to give such children another chance to survive that can contribute to the sense of solidarity and unite thousands of people around a common ethical goal. Disabled infants can’t decide for themselves whether or not they want to die. Parents, too, do not have such decision-making power. Euthanasia against children may be justified in extreme cases, which involve (a) failure to improve infants’ medical condition; and (b) irresistible pain which a child can no longer tolerate. Disability by itself is merely a challenge with which parents are faced. There are no criteria that can justify murdering a child simply because he (she) is disabled. What if the child himself grows up to become healthy? What if the child grows up to become a talented contributor to social growth? What if the child grows up to feel happy about being a living being, no matter the disability? Singer (1993) will never answer these questions. These questions are beyond the scope of his ethical analysis. Even if euthanasia becomes available to adults, the question of euthanasia involving infants will remain the most controversial aspect of ethical discussion. Apparently, what Singer (1993) proposes will make the lives of people much easier, but easy life can easily become unethical. There is no easy answer to difficult ethical questions, and, instead of killing thousands of people, society must focus on the development of medical technologies and make them available to everyone, so that people no longer want to die of hopelessness and despair. Conclusion Peter Singer’s Taking Life: Humans asks more questions than it can reasonably answer. Euthanasia can be justified as an instrument of pain relief, but no disabled infant deserves to be deprived of the right to life. Singer’s utilitarian position justifies his commitment to euthanasia; however, objectively, euthanasia cannot make society happier and maximize its wellbeing. Rather, societies must focus on the development of medical and other technologies, to ensure that people no longer want to die. References Singer, P. (1993). Taking life: Humans. In P. Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed., Cambridge, 175-217. Read More