Euthanasia - Personal Statement Example

Debates are interesting to participate in but the recent involvement in preparation for the debate as a team revealed team dynamics. To start with, we were seven in the group preparing for a debate on Euthanasia. The subject was interesting and appealing to all especially as we used to often discuss on the subject in our leisure. What made it interesting was now we had to apply theories studied in the course. All of us in the group had different study schedules and lectures but we made it a point to meet regularly. At times we also had to sacrifice our individual study schedules to be able to attend meetings. We also ensured that at every meeting we had something new to discuss on. This called for preparation even on our own before we met. We encountered several problems as a team though. A top performer in a group can act as a motivator, was the realization just a few days before the debate. One of our team members had always participated in debates right from his early teens. His enthusiasm influenced all of us to such an extent that most of us realized the potential we carry both in terms of creative thinking and expression of thoughts. This motivated us to work harder towards our goal. Being a part of the team the outcome would depend upon the team dynamics. Working as a team was like a jigsaw puzzle of complimentary parts fitting perfectly together. Teams can bring skills and experience that far exceeds what an individual can do alone. Involvement of all team members encourages innovation and creativity through sharing individual knowledge. Fortunately our group was cohesive and being on the same wave length, communication was smooth. Just as things were going in the right direction, two of the members suddenly dropped out in the last three days without even informing us of their decision not to participate in the debate. Initially this was like a bombshell till we realized that conflicts and problems can have positive outcomes. Since we were disturbed due to lack of communication from their end, we had to postpone the debate by three days. Finally we emerged victorious as we learnt so many things out of the sudden departure of our group members. This conflict or disturbance urged us to work harder. Conflicts have been known to enhance performance and this is precisely what their sudden exit did to our group. Had they carried their personal stress to the team all of us might have been negatively affected. After this, we came closer as a team and decided to keep constantly in touch with each other both through email and phone. Apart from increased knowledge on the subject of the debate, we learnt how sharing knowledge enhances individual knowledge and group performance. By the weekend just before the actual debate, we were thoroughly prepared to face the opposition. Five of us had each taken responsibility to thoroughly understand and explain to others about one theory governing the decision on Euthanasia. I brought to light John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle which asserts that “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign” (Rug, 2003). This restricts the power of physicians and others in the medical field to make decisions about the patient when the decision affects none other than the patient himself. Those against active termination of life do feel that legalizing assisted suicide does pose a threat to society and hence this principle is used to invoke a strong sense of defense of legalization of euthanasia. Poonam stated Dworkin’s principle which defends the right of each individual on philosophical and constitutional grounds, to end his life when he is undergoing endless misery and falls into a vegetative state. Dworkin’s principle urges the state to intervene and ensure that individual rights are respected. Heba argued Hart’s theory which separates law from morality. Hart believes in the ‘open-texture’ which implies that judges need to exercise their discretion when a case is not governed by any existing rule of law. The legal language is indeterminate according to Hart, which is where euthanasia can be interpreted to suit one’s convenience. Hence, each case has to be judged individually taking into consideration the facts surrounding the patient. Poonam countered this because according to Dworkin, when a judge decides a case he is not limited only to rules. Law is a seamless system and one must be able to find the correct answer for every case by searching through the ‘moral’ fabric of the society. At this juncture Naz intervened with Bentham’s pain and pleasure theory which states that actions are right as long as they produce pleasure or prevent pain. Naz argued based on this principle that the only rationale for human action is avoidance of pain or enjoyment of pleasure. Under the circumstances, euthanasia should be permitted if it is deemed to bring relief to the patient. If the action conforms to the principle of utility, if it brings happiness, then it is deemed to be right or at least it is not morally wrong. Morality is concerned with bringing in as much happiness as possible to the world. The principle of sympathy and empathy are not sufficient ground to judge the rightness of an action said Naz but Haleema brought in Devlin’s theory which discusses public morality. Devlin questions whether an individual has the freedom to decide what is moral and immoral or he has the freedom to be immoral whenever he wishes to be. According to Devlin any immoral act can affect the society injuriously and it invariably does so. Morality is necessary for the society because any act can impact the society as a whole. Hence, the law itself must be based on morality. Based on these theories we made the final preparations for the debate. Personal conclusion The debate over euthanasia has been going on for years as medical advances increase the longevity of a person, at the same time the suffering is also prolonged through life sustaining devices. According to me, suffering is not meaningless and human beings have no claim on death. The so-called mercy killing has nothing to do with mercy. It eliminates suffering while suffering has a reason behind it. The underlying principle of euthanasia is that death should be painless. When all means of amelioration of pain have been exhausted for a person suffering from a painful, incurable disease, he has the moral right to end his life but this is where law steps in. Sufferings alleviate a person; it is an opportunity given to him to atone for his sins. God has a purpose behind it. People might argue that the expenses might be prohibitive for some families. What happens in such cases? The motives in withholding excessive treatment to the ailing should be right. Normal care should be given but when the end is imminent and inevitable, it is pointless to apply extraordinary measures of medicine and prolong the suffering. Taking the life would be going against nature and against the will of God. All the religions advocate that human life has some purpose. Hence, with discretion, patients can be assisted by withdrawing the life support system but if euthanasia is legalized, misuse is bound to occur. Euthanasia should not be legalized. God has designed the purpose of human life and human beings do not have the power to evaluate their life on earth. Sufferings teach humanity about perseverance and compassion. Active euthanasia, therefore, is a sinful act. Euthanasia violates the prerogatives of God who is solely responsible for the beginning and end of human life. If euthanasia is legalized, it would be actively applied in all cases violating the laws of nature and also the individual human rights to live. Mill’s Harm Principle is important as it restricts the rights of the physicians. Standards of conduct in life are what constitute the morals and no society can live without morals. If every individual is allowed to take decision on his or her own life, chaos would prevail. Our group members had a thorough knowledge of the theories that they had each contributed. Naz could connect the Bentham’s theory very aptly to euthanasia while Haleema was not very confident in her approach. She was not very convincing on how law concerning euthanasia could be based on morality. When Naz described the pleasure and pain theory I countered it with Mill’s objection that some pleasures are more valuable than others. Intellectual pleasures have a greater impact on a person’s life according to Mill but when applied in the case of euthanasia Naz could not explain in terms of ‘more’ or ‘less’ pleasure. We could then come to the conclusion that while Mill and Bentham both advocated Utilitarianism, Mill was more qualitative and Bentham’s theory of pain and pleasure believed in quantity of pleasure derived. Dworkin’s and Hart’s theory had a legal approach and could not be debated much upon but they could apply it to euthanasia in the right sense. Bibliography: Epstein, R. A., (1993), Lifes Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom, 30 Dec 2006 How Mill Modifies Benthams Utilitarianism, 30 Dec 2006 Morals and the Criminal Law, 30 Dec 2006 Rug (2003), The Harm Principle, 30 Dec 2006 Scott, A., (2004), Bentham’s An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, 30 Dec 2006 30 Dec 2006 Read More