Physician Assisted Suicide - Term Paper Example

 Physician Assisted Suicide Introduction This paper is a brief attempt to uncover the ethical issues related to euthanasia from the perspective of different ethical theories and school of thought. Originally, I was against physician assisted suicide or euthanasia. My belief was that life is a gift of God and no one, even including that person has to finish it. However, lately, as I started digging deeper into the topics, many different perspectives, views, arguments and ideas came in front of me that forced me to reconsider my opinions about the same. Extensive research and primary experience forced to take the other side supporting euthanasia. As mentioned earlier that this paper would explore the paper from different dimensions and through various perspectives stressing more on the ethical theories and arguments supporting euthanasia. Discussion Utilitarianism, which is one of most well-known ethical theories under the umbrella of consequentalism or teleological ethics, is a school of thought, which believes that right and ethical actions are those, which could create maximum good for the maximum number of people. In other words, it focuses on the minimizing the pain and maximizing the pleasure (Devettere, pp. 106-107, 2009). If the issue of physician-assisted suicide is put forward in front of a utilitarianist then he would engage in a hedonic calculus for calculating the pleasure and pain inflicted by the situation of the patient. If the total pleasure is greater than the total pain than the utilitarianist would argue that, the person should live and vice versa. Furthermore, despite the fact that how much pain the person is suffering with, if the life of the person is causing pleasure and benefit for a greater number of people then the utilitarianist would argue that it is better for the person to live for as long as possible despite his condition (Donnellan, pp. 61, 2005). More importantly, even if the person pleads death, an utilitarianist in that particular condition would refrain from letting it happen because according to Millian principles of utilitarianism, if ever there is clash between the two basic principles or values of this ethical theory which are “Utility” and “Liberty”, then utility must prevail over liberty (Keown, pp. 201, 2002). Relativism refers to the school of thought who believes that absolute truth, knowledge of reality is inaccessible to the humans because of that every bit and piece of information or truth that comes to us is highly subjective. People from different cultures and backgrounds would see the same thing in many different ways in the process of processing and transmitting that information they would not pass on “what it was” but “what they thought it to be”. Relativism and specifically, moral relativism argues that terms like “ought”, “should”, “right” and “wrong” have no meanings (Keown, pp. 98, 2002). More importantly, there are no moral truths and anything that can be right for a person ‘A’ could be wrong for person B but not because it is right and wrong in itself but because of the fact that it is prerogative of the person itself to decide what is right and wrong. Furthermore, in the absence of no moral truth, there remains no logical need or premise for ethical theories (Paterson, pp. 79, 2008). Therefore, debated issues and actions like euthanasia, abortion, suicide, and infanticide are all permissible, more importantly, the only way to determine that whether euthanasia would be permissible or not, would be through looking at the public opinion and the moral code of the society (Keown, pp. 32-33, 2002). If a particular community or society of people thinks that, it is right then it is permissible and vice versa. Very close to relativism, moral relativism and subjectivism is the school of thought of emotivism, which stresses that the ethical statements made by people and the ethical values that to be the “truth” or “universal values” are mere expressions of their ethical beliefs, predispositions and presumptions (Harris, pp. 321-322, 2005). Therefore, when someone says, “slavery is morally correct” then it would be incorrect to the say that the person is wrong because even if we hold the opposite belief, saying that the other person is “right” would not mean that one is accepting that slavery is morally correct. It would only mean that the person acknowledges and respects the expressions of moral stances of others. Furthermore, moral expressions represent emotions and emotions are subject to constant change. Therefore, a person who is proponent of an ethical view may go on to oppose that stance with full force in the future. It would not mean that the truth has changed but it would merely mean that the person’s emotions about that ethical view have undergone a change (Keown, pp., 10-12, 2002; Harris, pp. 321-322, 2005). Ethical egoism comes under the umbrella of consequentalism, which argues that people act in ethical way when they try to act in a way that promotes their own long term and best interests. Thomas Hobbes who put forward this idea believed that people cannot help other but they can maximize their own interests and in doing so, their actions would become ethical (Devettere, pp. 87, 2009). Quite understandably, egoism does not validate or oppose euthanasia in itself but leaves on the person to decide that whether or not it is good for them. Therefore, a person who sees his benefit on euthanasia, for that person euthanasia would be ethical and vice versa (Harris, pp. 321-322, 2005). One of most reasons behind supporting euthanasia lies in the fact that it is directly in line with the principle of liberty and freedom. One should have complete freedom and liberty over his or her life including the right to decide when to end it. By not allowing one to take the decision of ending his or her life, it is in line with restricting the liberty of the person. The entire premise of western philosophy is based on the principle of liberty. As John Rawls, one of the most influential philosophers of 21st century said, “Liberty can only be restricted for Liberty itself” (Devettere, 2009). People who oppose euthanasia do the same on the basis that it devalues human life and no one has the right to “kill” someone. What these people fail to understand is the fact that euthanasia is not something, which is an everyday matter. The debate for euthanasia begins only when all other efforts from doctors and medical approaches fail to provide the patient with a healthy life and the pain of living that life becomes unbearable. Life represents colors, joy, happiness and the ability to live it successfully. In the absence of the same, life is meaningless. Another important issue is the fact that when families try to ensure their loved ones remain alive, despite in immense pain or on the support of machines, they are eating up precious medical resources, which can be used to treat other people who have the hope of living. Consider the example of Sigmud Freud, the father of modern psychology and the field of psychoanalysis (Paterson, pp. 79, 2008). One of the greatest minds of the 20th century, his contributions to various fields of science remain significant and even imperative for the development and progression of those school of thoughts. During the last years of his life, Freud suffered from cancer and he convinced his friend Max Schur (Leone, pp. 99, 1999) to help him commit suicide to ease the pain. Freud’s daughter Anna was against the idea since she did not want her father to die in front of her eyes but the doctor finally convinced her. The point here is that there are some situations when great minds like Freud also came to believe that euthanasia is important and imperative (Harris, pp. 321-322, 2005; Leone, pp. 99, 1999). Despite the fact that utilitarianism supports the idea of euthanasia in theory, however, its emphasis on the principle of utility may create problems during its implementation. When the life of any person increases the maximum good for the maximum number of people then it is highly likely that a utilitarianist would deem euthanasia as unethical for that person. Nevertheless, the schools of thought of relativism, emotivism, and ethical egoism are very close to my own viewpoint regarding euthanasia (Paterson, pp. 79, 2008; Leone, pp. 99, 1999). The former two have their roots in the subjectivism, which puts an end on the debate by presenting the argument that everyone is entitled to have their own opinion, which is neither right nor wrong. More importantly, even if it were right or wrong, one would never know since there is absolute moral truth or even if it were then we would never know about the same because of the subjective nature of all knowledge present to human beings (Devettere, pp. 52, 2009; Harris, pp. 321-322, 2005). On the other hand, emotivism also labels the views of the people regarding euthanasia as manifestation of their emotions, thus making them subject to change. Lastly, ethical egoism also leaves the decision of labeling euthanasia as moral or immoral on the subject based on his or her long-term interests. There may be some ambiguity and problems in defining the long-term interests of people but then again, the bottom line is that it presents room for euthanasia to be moral (Keown, pp., 61-62, 2002; Leone, pp. 99, 1999). Conclusion There is plenty of room for debate about euthanasia, its morality and immorality, pros and cons and others. Nevertheless, drawing from this brief debate it appears that euthanasia has strong arguments to be considered as an ethical and legal action. Ethical theories, such as relativism, emotivism, and ethical egoism happen to propose the same. Although, utilitarianism takes a different stance on the issue where it only supports euthanasia, when increases benefit for maximum number of people or where the hedonic calculus dictates that the pain exceeds pleasure. People who oppose euthanasia must understand that this is not some everyday happening but it is tough and difficult decisions taken by the families and the doctors. References Devettere, R. J. (2009). Practical decision making in health care ethics: cases and concepts. Georgetown University Press. Donnellan, C. (2005). The ethics of euthanasia. Independence. Harris, N. (2005). The ethics of euthanasia. Greenhaven Press. Keown, J. (2002). Euthanasia, ethics, and public policy: an argument against legalization. Cambridge University Press. Leone, D. A. (1999). The ethics of euthanasia. Greenhaven Press. Paterson, C. (2008). Assisted suicide and euthanasia: a natural law ethics approach. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Read More