Euthanasia and our civilization - Essay Example

?Euthanasia Part One: Summary Digest James Rachels in his article Active and Passive Euthanasia describes the moral differences between active and passive euthanasia. He has pointed out that the conventional doctrine about euthanasia is that there is such an important moral difference between the two that, although the latter is sometimes permissible, the former is always forbidden. He has challenged this notion and argued that active euthanasia is ethically more acceptable than passive euthanasia because of the following reasons: Active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia. The conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds. The doctrine rests on a distinction between killing and letting die that itself has no moral importance (Rachels 1) James Rachel pointed out that mercy killing or the intentional termination of the life of one human being by another is against the norms of medical profession and the policy of the American Medical Association. It is ethical for a doctor to withdraw the treatment of a patient in no hope condition because of the requests made by the patient and his relatives. However, the patient may intensify his pain and agony because of the withdrawal of treatment. In this case, active euthanasia should be considered more moral than passive euthanasia since the withdrawal of treatment may intensify the pain and agony of the patient for the remaining period of his life. In other words, the purpose of euthanasia may not be served in the cases of passive euthanasia. Rachels pointed out that “the process of being "allowed to die" can be relatively slow and painful, whereas being given a lethal injection is relatively quick and painless” (Rachels 2). James Rachel’s second argument is that some people perform passive euthanasia on irrelevant grounds. He has made this point clear with an example of an infant with Down syndrome. Such children may require a surgery to remove the intestinal obstructions that require operations if they are to live. However, some parents may not perform such surgeries and let the child die. In this case, “It is the Down's syndrome, and not the intestines, that is the issue” (Rachels 3). The third argument of Rachels is that killing (active euthanasia) and letting die (passive euthanasia) are controlled by the same motive: personal gain. Therefore, nobody can argue that letting die is better than killing in certain cases. “If a doctor lets a patient die, for humane reasons, he is in the same moral position as if he had given the patient a lethal injection for humane reasons” (Rachels 4). Arthur J. Dyck in his article An alternative to the ethic of Euthanasia argued against all forms of euthanasia. In his opinions, euthanasia is a dangerous policy and it is impossible to support a social policy in which people kill themselves. Compassion for those who are painfully ill and the concern for human dignity associated with the freedom are the major arguments cited in favour of euthanasia. Dyck has argued that these values have nothing to do with the process of dying. Regardless of the method employed for, the ultimate result of all forms of euthanasia is the same; the patient’s life is shortened. If one can justify the shortening of life using a method, then others forms of shortening life also be justified based on the utilitarian principles of ethics. Instead of euthanasia, Dyck put forward another term called benemortasia or happy death. Benemortasia provides the choice of how to live to while dying. “How a person dies has a definite meaning for those to whom that person is related. In the first year of bereavement, the rate of death among the bereaved relatives of those die in hospitals is twice that of the bereaved relatives of those who die at home” (Dyck 254). Joy and suffering are part of life and it is the duty if the community to provide assistance to those who suffers. Encouraging people to commit suicide is the failure of a society. It is dangerous to allow a physician to decide whether a patient’s life is not worth living. Physicians are also human beings and they can commit medical errors or wrong diagnosis of the disease. In short, even a dying patient cannot argue that his life is worthless and, therefore, committing any kind of euthanasia is immoral. On January 17, 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1970 Controlled Substances Act (CSA) does not give the U.S. attorney general the authority to prohibit Oregon doctors from prescribing lethal doses of drugs to certain terminally ill patients who want to end their own lives. The court's decision in Gonzales v. Oregon resolves a conflict between the state's Death with Dignity Act (DWDA) and the attorney general's interpretation of the federal drug statute. Oregon is currently the only state that has an assisted-suicide law. The Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, ruled that the Directive exceeded the powers that Congress granted to the attorney general under the CSA. The court, thus, affirmed a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that had held the Directive "unlawful and unenforceable."(“Supreme Court's Decision in Gonzales v. Oregon”) Part Two: Personal Analysis Rachels’ argument that active euthanasia is more acceptable morally than passive euthanasia seems to be illogical in my opinion. In my opinion, life and death are still beyond the grasping capacities of human. Even after huge advancements in science and technology, we are still unable to unveil the secrets behind birth and life after death. Majority of the people in this world has some belief in the existence of God. They believe that God send us to this world with a mission and it is immoral to commit suicide before the completion of that mission. Even a dying person may teach lot of lessons to others. We come to this world unintentionally. In other words, nobody knows about his life in this world prior to their birth. Same way, nobody knows what happens to his soul after death. Even science accepts the existence of a soul in human body. It is believed that the soul is the energy which is driving human body. Scientific principles say that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed. Under such circumstances, it is logical to think that soul or the energy detaches from our body at the time of death and stay alive somewhere, even though we do not have any knowledge about this energy after the death. Human life is the most precious thing in this world. It should be noted that nobody can return it once it is taken. Only the creator has the right to destroy or modify his creations. Passive and active euthanasia are processes which are destroying the creations of an unknown power. Hence, both forms of euthanasia are immoral and illogical. There are plenty of incidents in which patients whose life were written off by the doctors, recover well after some time. In other words, no doctor can say ultimate word about a person’s future life. In fact, he cannot predict his own future. It is quite possible that the doctor who is assisting a patient top commit suicide may lose his life at the very next moment. Nobody can predict or control the future of a person. In short, life and death are beyond our control and it is logical to let it finish by itself. Euthanasia may not be a suitable option for a civilized world like ours. Increased rate of euthanasia definitely reflects the failure of the society. Works Cited Dyck, Arthur J. “An Alternative to the Ethic of Euthanasia”. Web. 04 June 2012. http://www.philosophicalturn.net/CMI/Euthanasia/Dyck_Alternative_to_euthanasia.pdf Rachels, James. “Active and Passive Euthanasia”. Web. 04 June 2012. http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scccweb/etexts/deathanddying_text/Active%20and%20Passive%20Euthanasia.pdf “Supreme Court's Decision in Gonzales v. Oregon”. 2006. Web. 04 June 2012. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/4/supreme-courts-decision-in-gonzales-v-oregon Read More