The Morality, Humanity, and Legality - Essay Example

? Due Recently Susie was diagnosed with a terminal condition. The prognosis is a grim one. As the disease progresses it will bring, pain, degeneration, and ultimately complete immobility before inevitable death. Pain management is, simply, no longer working and, as hard as it is to admit, she is clearly slowly dying. You stop and ask yourself, “ Would she want her suffering to end? You ask yourself, “Would it be wrong to want her suffering to end?” The answer to these questions are comntroversial ones. If Susie were a pet then we would not question the honorable decision of ending her pain and suffering. We would consider it a humane thing to do. Yet, if Susie is a person then, for many people, the logic is the exact opposite. Even, if Susie, herself, desires that option, it may be considered in-humane to support such an option. To be humane is a part of being human, yet the same “humane” compassion that we would show our beloved pets, we do not feel compelled to show the same to our fellow human beings. Euthanasia, in its different forms, is not immoral, if it suits the morality of the person whose life, and death, is in question. In order to truly understand the contraversial issue that breeds so much ethical and moral debte it is impotant to review the full scope of the topic, from both sides, eliminate misconceptions, and, ideally, represent the morality of allowing individuals to choose not why they die, but the quality of that death, when death is inevitable. Firstly, euthanasia is not simply another word for suicide; it is, also, not another word for murder. The word means the intentional ending of a life, not out of malice or ciriminal intent, but to end suffering when death is imminent and saving of that life is no longer an option. For those who are in excruciating pain, suffering unbearable illness, and will inevitably die as a result, euthanasia is an opportunity to have an option, when all other options have, essentially,been taken away. There are different forms of euthanasia that are relevant in understanding the practice. Passive Euthanasia involves the allowing of a person by not providing medical procedures and removing of life support; this considered to be allowing nature to take its course. Involuntary Euthanasia is used to refer to the ending of the life of someone who is in a persistent vegetative state; in those cases where there is no realistic medical hope of any form of recovery. Active Euthanasia is, accordingly, when someone ends the life of another through a direct act at the request of the person that whose life is to be ended. This is, most commonly seen, when a spouse or relative of a loved one assists in the request to end their life. The last, and most focused upon, is Physician Assisted Suicide, or PAS, which refers to lives that are ended under the supervision and administration of a physician.(Goel 225) However, this extreme and final measure is intended to end the pain and suffering of those with no other options and have requested and chosen this end. The opportunity to die with dignity is a valid consideration. It is PAS that does get the greatest attention, because legislation is, always, being presented to, legalize the practice, but it is the ethical and moral elements that keep the issue, in many instances, at a stale mate. So what is the morality of euthanasia? As stated before, the morality is unique to the individual considering the option. If someone clear of mind makes the decision to end their life themselves then morally they have made peace with it. It is, of course, logical to question the morality when the potential actions of a person will directly, unfairly, or negatively impact another’s life, rights, or personal being. However, by ignoring these requests for right to die by the competent, but tragically ill, is, in fact, are directly and wrongly interfering in their rights and personal being. Supporters of PAS, and the implementation of legislation to legalize the act, explain that there are three distinct benefits that such legislation would offer. The first is the realization of “individual autonomy,” which is highly essential to American values. The second benefit, the reduction of needless pain and suffering; the humane elements of the issue. Lastly, the available option of PAS can provide psychological reassurance to dying patients. The presence of and respect for that small amount of control in their inevitable end can go a long way towards the emotional state of the ill and suffering.(Emanuel 630-633) It is a harsh phenomenon that someone who is ill and suffering should be expected to continue to suffer because others believe that not wanting to stay living, under all circumstance, is wrong. We live in a modern society, full of varying beliefs and religions, each one with unique ideals of morality and what it means to do what is “right.” In many belief systems it appears that euthanasia, like suicide, is a punishable act after death. As if the pain and suffering that any given individual may experience until their death is natural and deserved. So the question, is whether to suffer before death or after? For someone within such a belief system they would probably never consider PAS or any form of euthanasia; but for all those who do not share that world view, cannot be expected to live within the standards of another’s ideology. These concerns should, of course, be respected, but cannot be relied on as a singular guide. After all, a life-long atheist would hardly find this argument to be foolish and irrelevant. Although, religious ideologies and belief systems can play a huge role in the “moral” perception of euthanasia, but it is not the only source of opposition to the concept of PAS, as well as, the potential legalization of it. Many of those opponents, with contrary arguments, are within the medical professions, not the religious ones. They feel that the Hippocratic Oath prevent physicians, on principal, from participating in PAS. A 2006 survey, in the United States, of physicians that had previously been involved in a PAS case, showed that 24% regretted their participation and 16% feel an “emotional burden” from that involvement that continues to bother them.(Stevens) That said, they feel that the awkward and difficult position that legalization of PAS puts physicians could have negative impact on their psyche and ability to practice their profession. Other opponents speak to the potential misuse that such legislation could lead to. They believe that legalizing PAS could allow legal loopholes that would place some helpless and incapacitated individuals to be coerced, tricked, or made to feel forced into electing for death. They, also, fear that with PAS on the table as an option, that it could diminish the quality of hospice care to patients who have not optioned for PAS, in turn PAS will become needlessly more popular. Rita Marker, Executive Director, of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, in 2011, explains that the laws that currently prohibit euthanasia and PAS cases, “…are in place to prevent abuse and to protect people from unscrupulous doctors and others. They are not…intended to make anyone suffer.”(qtd. in"ProCon.org: Euthanasia") Although it is not the intent of euthanasia opponents to cause suffering, that said, they are allowing it to continue. By saying that we will never force anyone to die, you can do a greater disservice by forcing them to live. The questionable aspect of the oppositions arguments is that they are very dependent on the “what ifs” of the topic. The people who are in need of the freedom that arbitrating their own demise would grant them, have that need immediately. They are suffering as we speak. Much of the anti-euthanasia stand is based on the presumptions, assumptions, and the “worst case scenarios” that might or could occur. Yes, it is plausible that some individuals of low character may attempt to undermine the spirit of potential, permissive, euthanasia laws. The solution is simple, address those concerns, and do not live in fear of them. They argue that it disregards physician’s oaths to “do no harm” and places them in a mindset for possible mental, emotional, or ethical damage. There is an easy solution to this dilemma. Aside from the United States physicians who regretted their participation in a PAS scenarios, there were, also, 53% that felt comforted by the experience of the help given to the patient by performing a PAS.(Stevens) If certain doctor’s are uncomfortable with the idea then leave it to the physicians who do believe in PAS and allow them to legally assist these patients. The topic of PAS would not complete without mentioning the physician that brought the issue to the forefront in the 1990s. Dr Jack Kevorkian argued for the right of the terminally ill to choose how they shall die. He was involved in the ending of the suffering of, approximately, 130 people. Respected by his supporters, called “Dr. Death” by his opposition, Kevorkian’s mission brought greater attention to the quality of hospice care and increased physician awareness of the pain and suffering of terminal patients. Kevorkian’s acts contributed to the 2006 Supreme Court ruling to uphold the state of Oregon’s “Death With Dignity Act,” which allows physicians to provide prescriptions for lethal medications to those terminally ill patients seeking to end their lives.(Schneider ) In order to avoid negative connotations the state of Oregon changed the term from Physician Assisted Suicide to Physician Assisted Death; because PAS speaks not a person’s desire to “kill themselves,” but to make the decision between painful, slow death and immediate death. (Quill, and Greenlaw 137-142) No one is suggesting that hapless, arbitrary laws that lack structure or focus should simply be presented and approved. These are life and death issues that deserve and require clear criteria and restrictions. This kind of legislature would allow those whose every breath is agony, whose bodies are failing to disease, whose is existence is unimaginable and recovery is not an option to find freedom from pain and release from continuous, imminent suffering. There is nothing immoral about that. To be honest, it is, in some ways, cruel to allow someone to suffer when the means to alleviate suffering is available and requested. It is cruel to decide that because we are human, humane considerations are disregarded; as if it is our responsibility to suffer until death. That may suit some concepts of morality, but certainly not all of them. At the end of the day, human beings make decisions that affect the lives and deaths of others every day. Societies make decisions that call for the termination of lives, the execution of prisoners, when those lives are considered dangerous to the society as a whole. Taking lives involuntarily as a means of punishment fulfills a greater moral requirement than granting death to those who are suffering needlessly? Should an 85 year-old-man go to prison for the rest of his life because he aided his spouse of 60 years to end her suffering? The legality of Physician Assisted Suicide may remain in question for a long time to come, but the morality of the issue is not at all questionable. We are all born unique. We will all live different lives and we will die different deaths, but being forced to suffer unto death without necessity should not be tolerated and should never be endured. If our lives are uniquely our own to live then they should be uniquely our own to end when the end is inevitable. Works Cited Emanuel, Ezekiel J. "What is the Great Benefit of Legalizing Euthanasia or Physican- Assisted Suicide?." Ethics. 109.3 (1999): 629-642. Web. 9 Oct. 2012. . Goel, Vaibhav. "Euthanasia – A dignified end of life!." International NGO Journal. 3.12 (2008): 224-231. Web. 9 Oct. 2012. . Quill, Timothy E., and Jane Greenlaw. "Physician Assisted Death." From Birth to Death and Bench to Clinic: The Hastings Center Bioethics Briefing Book for Journalists, Policymakers, and Campaigns. Ed. Mary Crowley. Garrison: The Hastings Center, 2008. 137-142. Web. 9 Oct. 2012. http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/BriefingBook/Detail.aspx?id=2202 Schneider, Keith. "Dr. Jack Kevorkian Dies at 83; A Doctor Who Helped End Lives." New York Times 03 Jun 2011, n. pag. Web. 9 Oct. 2012. Read More