Death with Dignity and the Law - Essay Example

?Philosophy Moral considerations of the case The disease Gangrene is a condition characterized by the body tissues’ death; it can prove fatal if leftuntreated. Virginia’s disease could be treated. George was contacted by the caregiver who had informed him that the doctor wanted to immediately provide Virginia with medical care for the treatment of gangrene, but George chose otherwise and asked the caregiver to bring Virginia home rather than have her hospitalized. Care of the terminally ill patient From the details of the incident, it seems that killing Virginia was the easy way out, more for George himself than for Virginia. Killing Virginia saved George all the time and effort he would otherwise have invested in taking care of her. It is noticeable that Virginia had been suffering from this condition since 1969, and George had been taking care of her ever since. One way George’s act can be interpreted, assuming that he has tried to manipulate the legal authorities, is that he too wanted to put an end to this lifelong service of taking care of Virginia, since according to the deputies, George himself came up with the thought that Virginia did not want any medical care at all, as he has been reported saying that she, “She didn't want to go to that hospital ... start cutting her toes of” (Skoloff). George and Virginia discussed that being admitted into the hospital is like getting a death sentence, so this was not a favorable option for them. Most probably, George was in a position to have Virginia change her mind even if she did not want to be hospitalized. The details of the incident do not speak of a single moment where George tried to convince Virginia to seek medical care for the treatment of her condition. All he did was cooperate with Virginia in putting an end to her life first by refusing to have her hospitalized and then by fulfilling her wish to be killed. Although at one point, George did tell Virginia that he could not shoot her, yet all it took was a persistent demand of Virginia to have herself shot to shoot her. If Virginia was that serious about putting an end to her life, one wonders why did she not just shoot herself rather than asking her husband to do it for her who she knew loved her so much? Besides, Virginia should have thought that having George kill her might put his own life to risk as he would be facing legal charges afterwards. Challenges associated with euthanasia Neither George nor Virginia thought about the challenges lying ahead for George in case of having him kill her that could be totally avoided if Virginia put an end to her life herself. Apparently, one cannot sense love in the act of a husband killing his wife especially when the wife was fully equipped to kill herself if she was that serious about it. Even before George shot her, Virginia asked him if this would cause pain, and George convinced her that she would not feel anything. This is strange because firstly, George had never experienced the sensation of being shot in his own entire life so he was not competent to tell her whether this would hurt or not, and secondly, it takes little common sense to tell that shooting somebody hurts. According to George, he and Virginia understood the medical procedure as comprising cutting the dead body tissue after which, Virginia would be taken to a nursing home where she would have to stay until her death. Choice of method for euthanasia The most controversial part of the incident is the use of .22 caliber revolver by George to commit the premeditated murder, and later called over the part-time caregiver of Virginia to make the confession. George and the caregiver called 911 separately. Meanwhile, Virginia had not died. When George was found in the front porch by the deputies, Virginia was placed in the wheelchair and was alive, still breathing. George did an incomplete job leaving Virginia alive even after shooting her. By leaving her alive in that state, he only increased the misery and pain for her. Before, it was just the gangrene on her foot; now, it was accompanied with the pain of a bullet. Although George had attempted to take Virginia’s life, yet the time of death is decided only by God and nobody can put an end to another person’s life unless God’s will is involved. This works against any kind of justification to end an individual’s life as decided by humans. Since there is no recorded evidence of Virginia asking George to kill her, it is quite as likely, if not more, that George is lying before the police to save his life. Usually, the elderly want to live as long as they can; in most of the cases, it is the family and the care givers that wish the elderly sick person’s life is over more than the person does himself/herself. It is clear from the details of the incident that the method chosen by George to kill Virginia was certainly the most convenient for either of the two. Analysis There can be two main facts of this case; either Virginia wanted to die or George wanted to kill her. If Virginia wanted to die, George has, undoubtedly, made use of a very painful course of action to grant Virginia’s wish and has made improper use of the firearm. Alternately, if George wanted to kill Virginia or leave her in the state of pain and suffering, he is accountable for his action. It is a possibility that George was sick and tired of taking care of his wife for so long, in which case, his act is nothing less than a homicide and needs to be dealt with as such. According to Aristotle, “[T]he worst person is the one who exercises his wickedness in relation to himself and in relation to his friends, and the best is not he who exercises his virtue in relation to himself but the one who exercises it in relation to others, since this is a difficult thing to do” (Aristotle 83). For the most part, this murder has been considered as a mercy killing just because George has himself confessed that he has committed the murder and has shared the reasons for the same with the concerned authorities. Irrespective of the fact that his wife had asked George to shoot her or not, the stigma associated with this awareness that her death was caused by him and especially that it took her too long to die even after being shot and that all that time was spent by her in severe pain is something George would have to live with for the rest of his life. It is indeed, very unwise of him, not to think about the legal and societal repercussions of his act and not being able to find better alternatives to grant Virginia her wish. One day, when the cutting-edge palliative care would have expanded and there would be effective ways of treatment of diseases like multiple sclerosis, George might repent having been in a hurry to escort Virginia to her destination. One does not have to resort to euthanasia and especially, such a violent form of it to relieve the condition of pain and misery of someone. Kant’s perspective The foundational thought in the deontological perspectives can be attributed, for the most part, to the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant defined the human status as moral agents in terms of their ability to reason. According to Kant, an action is morally valuable and reflects good will when it is executed for the sake of duty rather than for some other reason like fear of accountability or punishment for the legal standing of the action. Moral judgment in Kant’s view is solely based on reason in contrast to the notion of Aristotle that bases ethics on the human nature. Moral reasons in Kant’s view can be known as only reason’s consequence rather than being based on observation. Therefore, it is possible to reveal reason in morality’s basic principles that are duty, categorical imperative, and goodwill. Nothing in Kant’s view is good but the good will. This does not mean that all such values including honesty, courage, and happiness are not good, but what it means is their inherent goodness is determined by the will which uses them. For example, intelligence is good when it is used to spread peace but not when it is used to harm the society. The second formulation of categorical imperative includes treating people with respect so as to bring the humanity, not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself. In other words, the second formulation of categorical imperative suggests that one should treat humanity as an end always. All rational beings including man sustain as an end in their selves rather than as a means to be used by a will arbitrarily. On the other hand, nonrational beings are called things because they only have a means’ relative value. Among all living beings, humans are special because they possess a rationality that not only makes them different from other living beings but also makes them quite unique. This implies that human beings must always behave in such ways that are not offensive for others and that never disrespect other humans’ dignity. Humans should behave with others in ways that they would want others to behave with them in. Nevertheless, Kant does not approve of the idea that euthanasia may be encouraged or legalized irrespective of the circumstances. Kant’s first formulation of categorical imperative considers humans as rational beings that saps their right to take their own or others’ lives. “This kind of maxim will not form a universal law; since it cannot form a universal law, then it should be removed and replaced with a more reasonable maxim. If we will such maxim, we will end in hypothetical imperative not categorical” (Odianosen 9). In addition to that, Kant does not speak of humanity as a means to an end, but as an end in itself in the second formulation of categorical imperative. Considering humanity an end, nobody assumes a right to take anyone else’s or his/her own life irrespective of the circumstances. Kant requires humans to behave in a way that is not offensive for others. Giving someone euthanasia is a dehumanizing act and is disastrous. Mill’s perspective In the perspective of the famous philosopher John Stuart Mill, mercy killing may be justified on ethical grounds if it serves as a way to spread maximum happiness. Mill’s theory is based on utilitarianism that does not judge an action by its inherent goodness or evilness, but by its impact on the larger society or the stakeholders. “John Stuart Mill’s liberal philosophy declares that individual autonomy should be respected and that the state should criminalise only conduct which is harmful to others” (Biggs 25). Proponents of euthanasia i.e. Utilitarians argue that every individual can choose when to die and has a right to decide about his/her body because restricting human liberty is unethical even it is about stopping someone from killing oneself. According to the definition of criminal behavior, voluntary euthanasia is not included in criminal behavior because harm is performed at the victim’s volition and is not inflicted upon others. In light of Mill’s theory of morality of actions, mercy killing is ethically justified in certain cases. It is likely that George’s act of shooting his wife may be considered ethically justifiable because the sole intention George says he had behind doing this was to relieve the pain and suffering of Virginia. He wanted to free her from a life of pain and dependency on others. Rather than having her live with a poor quality of life, he would fulfill her wish of having a way out through death. However, this does not imply that George’s action sent a positive message for the society or affected his own image in a positive way. Criticism and response One serious objection that a Utilitarian might raise is that George gave Virginia relief from her misery. However, to just consider the effects of Geroge’s action on Virginia is, indeed, narrow-mindedness for George’s decision involved himself, his family, and the society as a whole in addition to just Virginia. To say that George’s act of killing Virginia is ethically justified because it relieved Virginia of her painful condition and put an end to her misery is ignorance because there is a lot of subjectivity hidden in the theory of utilitarianism in relation to the good consequences. The consequences of George’s act were only good in terms of relief from pain for Virginia. For the rest of the part, the consequences were bad e.g.; George lost Virginia, George was accused of having committed a murder, and his image in the eyes of at least some public is tarnished. “Bliss isn’t everything…if purchased at the cost of ignorance” (Hooker 23). The opponents of euthanasia i.e. Kantians argue that mercy killing weakens the respect of the society toward the sanctity of life. It undermines the motivation of the doctors and physicians to provide high quality care to the terminally ill patients and challenges their dedication to protect the human life. Implementation of voluntary euthanasia discourages the effort of the scientists and the researchers to identify new methods of treatment and cure for the terminally ill patients. The acceptance of euthanasia by the society also leads to an increase in the pressure over the elderly relatives by the selfish family members. Euthanasia is simply inappropriate for anyone because of a range of reasons. Not only does the murderer have to deal with the societal repercussions of the act, but also he/she has to bear the burden of the guilt of killing the loved one for the rest of the life. Conclusion Kant considers humans rational beings and requires them to behave as such. Rationality makes humans different from animals. Humans should behave and act in such ways that are not in conflict with their own maxims which become universal laws. Knowing that their maxims would be considered universal laws, humans should correct their mundane thoughts. While Kant overtly disapproves of mercy killing, Mill approves of it in specific cases. Considerations that are morally relevant to the decision faced by George include the effectiveness of treatment for the disease Virginia suffered from, whether or not to give euthanasia; the effects of euthanasia on the George, his family, and the society; the choice of method to give euthanasia so that pain is minimal. Concluding, killing someone or giving someone voluntary euthanasia is not justified in any case because this is essentially a dehumanizing thing with many negative repercussions not only on the life of the murderer and the victim, but also on the society as a whole. Had George not killed Virginia, the two might have been able to spend some more years together and her gangrene might have been treated effectively. “Isn’t it necessary, then, for these people to live with pleasures that are mixed with pains, mere phantoms and illusionist paintings of true pleasures?” (Socrates cited in Platon 289). Works Cited: Aristotle. Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2000. Print. Biggs, Hazel. Euthanasia: death with dignity and the law. Hart Publishing, 2001. Print. Hooker, Brad. “Rule-Utilitarianism and Euthanasia.” N.d. Web. 22 April 2013. . Odianosen, Peter. “Immanuel Kant’s moral theory as a response to euthanasia.” 2013. Web. 22 April 2013. . Platon. Republic. Hackett Publishing Company, 2004. Print. Skoloff, Brian. “George Sanders, Arizona Man, Gets Probation In Mercy Killing.” Huff Post. 30 Mar. 2013. Web. 22 April 2013. . Read More