Is Voluntary Euthanasia Morally Permissible - Essay Example

Is Voluntary Euthanasia Morally Permissible? Studies show that this is a highly controversial given the definition that euthanasia involves killing an ailing individual intentionally in order to end suffering. Literally, speaking, for death to be good, living must be worse than dying thus someone who undergoes euthanasia, his or her death is good. For instance, living can be worse than dying if a person is suffering from an irreversible comma or incurable painful disease. In voluntary euthanasia, the patient expresses this choice and passes on the death action when faced by a situation where life is not worth living. Voluntary euthanasia can be either active or passive. In active euthanasia, doctors, family members, and the patient may all reach a consensus to end the patient’s life through lethal injection, for instance. On the other end, passive euthanasia takes place they allow the disease to kill the patient by withholding essential medication for treating an illness that kills (Howe, 2004:2). This paper will seek to establish whether voluntary euthanasia is morally permissible and whether authorities should legalize it deriving answers from Rachel, Callahan, and Larch’s arguments. Voluntary euthanasia is morally permissible The arguments of Rachel, Callahan, and Larch regarding voluntary euthanasia set forth major views of both traditionalist and libertarians. With reference to the views of libertarians set forth by philosopher James Rachel, there is no moral relevance or difference between active and passive euthanasia (Garrard and Wilkinson, 2012:1). He further adds that, from a moral point of view, the most important aspect is a person’s biographical life, which includes the person’s relationships, aspirations, and interest among others. Contrary, Rachel points out that a person’s biological life is not important when viewed morally. He brings forth a bit of controversy when he exclaims that, since there is no relevant distinction between active and passive euthanasia, there is also no given case when passive euthanasia is morally justifiable than active euthanasia. However, given the aspects related to voluntary euthanasia as set forth by Rachel’s argument, voluntary euthanasia is morally permissible (Feinberg and Feinberg, 2010:214). From a traditionalists view such as Callahan, their arguments show that there is a clear moral distinction between active and passive voluntary euthanasia. This is because of the fact that, active voluntary euthanasia involves a direct and intentional ending of an innocent human life whereas passive euthanasia involves allowing the natural process of dying to take its course by either withdrawing or withholding treatment. Nevertheless, under certain circumstances such as when the patient is terminal, death appears merely foreseen, imminent, not directly caused, and treatment is extraordinary, passive euthanasia is morally permissible (Garrard and Wilkinson, 2012:3). This is because; it is inhumane and cruel to turn down the plea of a terminally ill person to end his or her life in order to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. If an action violates no one’s rights and its cause promotes the best interests of everyone concerned, then the action is morally acceptable, says Callahan’s argument. Voluntary euthanasia advocates put across that, a patient becomes a qualified candidate for voluntary euthanasia when his or her chances of recovery are not beneficial, not to him or herself or anyone else. The intention of this condition is to reflect on the fact that it is normally agreeable to say that someone’s health condition is incurable or irreversible. Proponents argue that, when a terminally ill person undergoes voluntary euthanasia, he or she dies with dignity and without pain (Feinberg and Feinberg, 2010:233). Therefore, under circumstances where the hope for life deems minimal and the course of the disease as well as the adaptive response of the body is not predictable, then voluntary euthanasia is acceptable. Additionally, voluntary euthanasia is morally acceptable if the suffering individual is undergoing intolerable pain and his or her life is unacceptably burdensome since the ways of treating the illness leads the patient to unacceptably dependence on other people or technological ways of supporting life. This situation is of paramount importance since according Larch it does not only justify the importance of voluntary euthanasia, but also relieves people the pain that leads them to consider death instead of life. An intuitive example is The Netherlands where, due to loss of independence, asking for help with dying than other forms of frustration and suffering is a reason of less significance. Some patients suffering from terminal conditions may have their pain relieved but have to endure other side effects that make life more unbearable (Feinberg and Feinberg, 2010:247). Others may not necessarily cope with pain but may become incapable of living with no life support forms that may simultaneously rob them the quality of their lives. In such cases, voluntary euthanasia is morally permissible. Voluntary euthanasia is not morally permissible Often, different individuals put forward that, it is unnecessary for anyone to die due to suffering from intolerable pain. Due to advanced technology and intense research, medical services worldwide are getting better at providing effective and efficient palliative care. Simultaneously, hospice care is becoming more widely available and given these considerations, opponents of euthanasia are urging that voluntary euthanasia is unnecessary (Yorke, 2010:293). This paper conforms to these flaws in this counter argument. To begin with, in spite of the fact that hospice care and palliative draw essential contributions towards caring for the dying person, neither is panacea. Commonly, high quality palliative care exerts more prices in the form of side effects, which include incontinence and nausea, as well as loss of awareness due to semi-permanent drowsiness. The rosy picture painted here questions how palliative care can aid in transforming the life of the dying person. Thus according to moral advocates of voluntary euthanasia, this act is morally unacceptable. The distinction between life sanctity and life quality is one major argument among the philosophers in subject. Arguably, moral teachings depict that people should not leave people with mental illnesses, deformities, handicapped, and elderly to suffer due to their status of health. As a result, it is morally unacceptable to choose to lend a hand a dying person in committing voluntary euthanasia. This is because, peoples’ lives are precious, and no one should manipulate, humiliate, and mock the sanctity of life by carrying out voluntary euthanasia. Hence, both active and passive euthanasia are immoral despite justification by some philosophers. Actually, in passive euthanasia, the doctor leaves the suffering patient to die (Yorke, 2010:312). Proponents of voluntary euthanasia use this point of view to draw argumentative bases supporting the action. What they fail to understand is that, according to Rachel, when a doctor leaves the patient to die, he commits immorality by not taking any action. This cognitive argument sets forth that taking right in voluntary euthanasia with view of ending pain and suffering is immoral given that fact that life is a God given gift. Voluntary euthanasia is morally unacceptable since it violates one’s right to life. Philosopher Callahan makes it clear that, the traditional view of voluntary euthanasia finds intentional termination of a human life as impermissible, regardless of whether the cause is because of action or inaction. According to his explanation, if a mother gives birth to a baby with a respiratory problem and a simple medical procedure can fix the problem, it is upon the mother’s decision to choose to have or not to have the operation carried out (Feinberg and Feinberg, 2010:259). If the baby dies simply because the mother chooses not to have the surgery carried out, it means that she lets the fatal respiratory problem terminate the life of the baby intentionally. The base of the decision made is a cause of the mother’s choice not to extend the life of her child. This base of failure to take an action is immoral hence; voluntary euthanasia becomes morally impermissible in such cases. Even though voluntary active euthanasia promotes the well-being and autonomy of the patient, the act is morally wrong for it incorporates deliberate killing of an innocent human being. Taking life in such a way is morally wrong as withdrawing or withholding treatment is an act of deliberate killing of an innocent human being as well. Survival is the guiding principle of organization and evolution of people’s defense and psychological reflexes. With reference to this phenomenon, philosopher Lach argues that voluntary euthanasia is morally impermissible since it is against people’s nature. Another objection of performing voluntary euthanasia is that, emotional factors arising from suffering experience may influence the decision and correspond to a state of mind that may have no or minimal moral significant (Yorke, 2010:367). Nonetheless, the complexity regarding this issue requires substantial time necessary for reasoning and weighing since the decision involves ethical, legal, and personal considerations and demonstrates medical seriousness. The relevant authorities should legalize voluntary euthanasia Opponents of voluntary euthanasia argue that, if voluntary euthanasia becomes legal people who are not terminally ill might abuse it. However, in order to give highly critical response concerning the legality of voluntary euthanasia, this essay employs utilitarian approach since it resolves to use those rules that seek to create the greatest happiness. It is relevant to make a rule that permits voluntary euthanasia if it makes them happy. Given this point of view, it is morally right to legalize voluntary euthanasia since it gives the prospects at least happiness (Rodgers, 2011:1). This is because, people consider actions of voluntary euthanasia as morally upright as they maximizes on happiness. However, it is worth noting that, for a voluntary euthanasia to take, place the must identify whose happiness is the action considering. Voluntary euthanasia should be illegal Under no any circumstance should the relevant authorities or anyone for that matter consider to legalize voluntary euthanasia. This is because of a number of reasons. Since alternative methods of treating and curing terminal illnesses are available, voluntary euthanasia is unnecessary (Howe, 2004:5). There is a wide misconception that there exist only two options, which are open to patients suffering from terminal illnesses: either they receive euthanasia or they die slowly by withholding treatment. The most recent studies show that, unpleasant symptoms experiences a patient undergoes in the process of terminal illnesses are terminable. In fact, meticulous researches in palliative medicine assert that there are techniques already available that can substantially alleviate or terminate terminal illness experiences. This is a clear indication that there are no circumstances should legalizing voluntary euthanasia optional. Legalizing voluntary euthanasia is morally impermissible and therefore not right or acceptable. This is because ailing patient’s requests for voluntary euthanasia are rarely free and voluntary since a patient with terminal illness is vulnerable. A patient suffering from terminal illness lacks skills and knowledge to alleviate his or her own symptoms and thus he or she may be suffering from and anxiety and fear of the future and the effect the illness might have on others. Voluntary euthanasia should remain illegal since terminally ill patients end up adapting to disabilities that they would not have previously anticipated they could live with (Howe, 2004:7). Most elderly people consider them selves as burdens to their families, the society, and their caretakers as they see their health status is cost conscious and they may be short of resources. As a result, they may feel free and voluntary to request for euthanasia. These elderly people need to know that their society has commitment towards their well-being even if this may involve expenditure of time and money. It is their little time left and quality of their life that calls for illegalization of voluntary euthanasia. In summary, voluntary euthanasia undermines medical research. Therefore, carrying out voluntary euthanasia demeans the ongoing research effort aimed at realizing desired developmental treatments for fatal illnesses and hitherto unmanageable symptoms. As illustrated in this paper, circumstances where a patient is suffering from terminal illness and experiencing too much pain, carrying out voluntary euthanasia is morally right (Howe, 2004:14). In addition, moral standards play a huge role in deciding on choices regarding voluntary euthanasia as put forward by arguments from Callahan, Rachel, and Larch. As debatable and complicated as it is, voluntary euthanasia is never easy to reach a consensus that can accord it a yes or a no. recommendation for this paper deems legality of voluntary euthanasia under the circumstances of one’s will. Bibliography Feinberg, J. and Feinberg, P. 2010. Ethics for a brave new world. New York: Crossway. Garrard, E. and Wilkinson, S. 2012. Clinical ethics: Passive euthanasia. Available from: http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/2/64.full.pdf [Accessed April 16, 2012] Howe, S. 2004. Voluntary Euthanasia. Available from: http://www.dwdtas.org.au/downloads/ve_submission.pdf [Accessed April 16, 2012] Rodgers, S. 2011. Survey results- attitudes to voluntary euthanasia. Accessed on April 16, 2012. Yorke, J. 2010. The right to life and the value of life: Orientations in law, politics and ethics. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Read More