Plausibility of Singer's Views on Infanticide and Euthanasia - Essay Example

Euthanasia Critically assess the plausibility of Singers views on infanticide and euthanasia As stated by Singer (2011), Euthanasia is the act of merciful killing of an individual. There are different categories of euthanasia; Voluntary, Involuntary and Non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia involves mercy killing with the consent of the individual. Involuntary euthanasia is killing without the consent of the individual and sometimes can be considered as murder (Singer, 1993). Non-voluntary euthanasia is happens when the person involved is unable to make decision whether to live or die in most cases severe illness that puts a patient into a comma for a long time. According to an argument put by Singer (1993), some activists are campaigning for changes in laws that protect individual from voluntary euthanasia. This is ridicule to the people who want to commit this act of voluntary euthanasia. People will always try ways to break and bend the law in most given scenarios. Voluntary, Involuntary and Non-voluntary Euthanasia. In Scenario of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a pathologist in Michigan made a killing machine, which an interested individual commits, suicide. The machine involved is well build with the main purpose of taking killing lives of people (Singer, 1993). The machine has three drippers with medication responsible of killing, mounted on a pole. There is a switch button that is pressed for the process to start. The first drip contains medication responsible to put one into a coma and the remaining two, are responsible for killing the body functionality. Singer (2011) affirms that it is ironic how the doctor went all that trouble to solve the problem of voluntary euthanasia. Dr. Jack made it available to the public but under the condition that the patient does it him/herself. After the event, Dr. Jack reported the case and he is apprehended but the judge denies filing any charges on him basing the argument that it was voluntary euthanasia (Cresswell, 2003). In review to this, Dr. Jack is responsible for the technicality of the death of the patient but ends up innocent meaning the individual was supposed to be charged. It does not really explain well how voluntary euthanasia theory should be practiced (Singer, 1993). Involuntary euthanasia is whereby an individual is killed without his consent and in some cases is termed as murder. It is quite odd to disregard one consent, who is able to decide but doesn’t give him or her a chance to choose (Singer, 2011). It would be impossible to know the decision of another person without asking and getting the necessary feedback before acting. It is therefore very rare for involuntary euthanasia to occur in a genuine manner that is not forced. Non-voluntary euthanasia is taking away of life where an individual doesn’t have the ability to make decisions which include infants, aged people or an individual whose at no capacity to understand issues. The person undertaking the act had no good intension at heart (merciful killing) to end patients suffering (Preece, 2002). In most cases, patients are bed-ridden and no sign of getting well in future. This leaves the other person to make judgment of the other person to live or die. God as the Supreme Being should be the decision maker over life and death (Singer, 1993). Infanticide of Disabled This involves taking the life of an infant whereby it is abnormal or disable. In infanticide the writer argues out that the parent of disabled infant may offer the option of adopting the child rather than killing it. This is not plausible, because most people don’t want a deformed, disabled child (Singer, 1993). Infants are without consent and not able to make decisions. Infants with long-term problems like spina bifida, some doctors advise parent or guardian to subject it to infanticide at an earlier. The act of mercy killing would be a solution at the time but a disaster in the future for the parents. Peter Singer explains that in cases where some deformity is detectable at an early age like hemophilia and Down syndrome views abortion as an appropriate solution given the depth or seriousness of the illness (Singer, 1993). This argument is not applicable in real world because this would mean people wouldn’t take chances in giving birth to infants that are proved to be fit and free from these crippling diseases. Some other ill disorder happens later after birth and others can’t be detected. Doctors could fail in their test and give negative results, causing the death of a normal infant. The author specifies that aborting of unborn to get another, is like replacing and interchanging of the fetus (Cresswell, 2003). It’s unethical and unacceptable in the community. Similarly giving pregnant women an opinion of visiting clinics for checkup and conclude to whether to have an abortion or not so as to prevent fratricide in the future would be wrong. In case the infant is abnormal women should take chance and keep their options open to positivity (Singer, 1993). Adoption of abnormal babies can’t be viewed as a solution to infanticide because this wouldn’t be viable. It is difficult as human cognitive psychology to go for a better choice. With human limitation this fact is not plausible to normal people (Uniacke, 1997). Normal people tend to be choosy in what they want. Non-voluntary Life and Death Decisions In a case stated in General Hospital in Washington of a woman who stayed in a vegetative state for thirty nine years shows a lot of resources and time used in sparing a life. This would not be the case for most people; some would have committed non-voluntary euthanasia. It took substantial amount of money and resources (Singer, 1993). This can only happen if the patient’s guardian is willing and able to provide necessary medical care. I can’t see the use of putting a patient that long in a comatose state, while using substantial amount of money, resources and time. To sustain an individual in a vegetative state for that long, there could be a slight chance of recovering. The patient might die and all efforts will be considered futile (Singer, 1993). Justifying Voluntary Euthanasia In this paragraph Simon Singer compares voluntary and non-voluntary argument having the same grounds, as in “benefiting the one killed” (Singer, 1993). This could be partly true, in the sense that it may be equal act, but death doesn’t benefit anyone as mentioned. It only brings grief to the living and nothing good comes out of it. According to most patients attending a voluntary euthanasia, requires confirmation from the doctor attending to them, that in case of an emergency, the doctor may intervene and kill the patient with other means possible. This is considered barbaric and unethical for a professional doctor to assent to this contract (Singer, 2011). Professional doctors have a signed oath never to kill a patient knowingly. This goes against all principles that the doctor stands for. In Netherlands, one should account a number of questions into consideration before taking his/her own life. Terms and Conditions viable for an individual to be a potential candidate, are questions that intrigues ones psychology (Preece, 2002). In the grounds that the small set of questions are very simple and to the point but will judge your fate of life and death (Singer, 2011). These set of questions seem to question your conscious if you really want to go through with the process. In some instances people feel guilty and drop the process. In a couple of instances, doctors have made the wrong conclusion about a patient health, who is willing to be on death row if nothing positive will happen in the future. This typo can result to hazardous judgment and voluntary euthanasia (Glock, 1994). The argument of two doctors not seeing through a major mistake shows the humanness of doctors and not to trust them fully. It would be better for a patient to keep his/her options about the process open after an examination. The writer has given a plausible example of allowing an individual to take drugs like heroine, just because his consent and rights to freedom allows him. This is not the case, one has restriction in some decision making (Singer, 2011). In this instance people with drug abuse obsession can be taking through counselling and therapy, why not the same for euthanasia. Instead of trying to justifying the different levels of euthanasia and their consent to individual, it would be appropriate to try it with a hopeless person willing to take his life. Not Justifying Involuntary Euthanasia Involuntary euthanasia as earlier said involves making the decision of killing for someone with consent of making one but is not asked for his opinion. It is almost impossible to make certain judgment of another person life and make the best and like judgment as the person felt. It is not plausible for someone else to make critical thought for anyone else but himself (Singer, 2011). The patient seems abnormal and ill but how he feel is much important. The writer in a paragraph tries to explain the plausibility of involuntary euthanasia, but the argument is rather fictional than realistic. He explains about a killer who is not punished for his actions by the deceased but later tortured by the dead for his action. Singer (1990) argues that this belief exists in a fictional world. Active and Passive Euthanasia In the case of infants with spina bifida British Dr. John Lorber came up with selective treatment for children with mild symptom that were curable. This left out a considerably a large number of infants without a choice of getting cured (Singer, 1993). This is not a plausible thought given that the doctors didn’t try each and every child brought to them. Glover (2011) states that in the parents mind, doctors did not do everything possible to save lives instead gave priority of the better off infants and left the rest for dead. A scenario case reveals how a dying child is dies in the care of parents, owing to the fact the fact that they did not want a risky but effective procedure to take place (Singer, 2011). The case is presented to court by the Medical Hospital to sue the parent but the child dies on the process. This brings up different views among the public. A thought pulled from these events try to find out a plausible solution. A doctor who injects the child with lethal medicine, or a doctor who knows without a specific prescription of drugs the child would die but does do it (Singer, 1986). Who is better of the two? Should we accept the one who omitted or the one who acted? Both have possible solutions but still not working at the same time due to applying their theory wrongly (Singer, 2011). In shot some support taking of lethal injection as a quick solution to pain and agony while others view withholding treatment and living a little longer plausible. Glock (1994) affirms that the main difference between Active and Passive euthanasia is that active involves withholding of treatment while passive is allowing the patient to die. In a British article about infants with spina bifida explore the approach of both active and passive euthanasia. Twenty five infants were neglected and died later on while five with milder symptoms were treated. In a similar event, an infant with Down’s syndrome had blockage in the digestive system therefore making it impossible to eat (Cresswell, 2003). The solution is either to let the infant die painfully or do the operation and just a little longer. In both scenarios the infant must die but the question is when and in what condition. The plausible thought of going through all this trouble is to evaluate the position of leaving a patient at its best without inflicting much pain. They are both hazardous and impermanent solutions (Singer, 2011). The slippery Slope from Euthanasia to Genocide The Nazi’s ideology of euthanasia is ruled out, Alexander terming it as “euthanasia program as the root of horrendous crime the Nazi’s later committed” (Singer, 1993) which implied that to them there was a life that could be cut short due its unworthiness of living it. In a Survey carried out by Health Care Economist to show how much people valid their lives, you would hear of incidences of people revealing how they wish they were dead than live a miserable life. In conclusion to this book the author finalizes by saying that he disagrees with all acts of euthanasia, even though he seemed very positive minded concerning euthanasia (Singer, 2011). He explains it as a slippery slope to giving in to murder or killings of any other kind. In this paragraph the writer gives incentives that whoever gives a criterion should die, the same process should be used to decide who should be killed (Cresswell, 2003). This is a clever way of the writer giving a last word that no one has the ability to judge who is to die and who is to live. It is impossible or implausible to come up with such an ideology. In ancient times, some behavior was categorized with killing of a particular type of individual and restrictions to killing others (Singer, 2011). The ancient Greek killed infants but in sculptures and Eskimos killing their parents but close to impossible. All these actions were far-fetched craziness, with the unnecessary aim of making unwanted projections. Doctors performing these operations have been given so much authority given the fact that they are the satisfiers of the decision-making on either to exterminate life or give life. In this approach we stop viewing it as their jobs to sustain life instead we view them as the decision makers, when we really shouldn’t praise them for doing their jobs. (Singer, 1993) Nazi’s definition of euthanasia contradicts the main idea behind it. They are irrational; trying to justify that fetus gains the certain maturity to be considered human or non-human. They are termed to be a slippery slope argument (Singer, 1993). It is also seen that the Nazis did not have any of euthanasia program. The euthanasia programs they thought they had, was not motivated by worries of the killed individuals. If the program had concerns, why did the Nazis put their operations as secrets, lied to the family members on the cause of death of the people who were killed. Singer (1993) argues why did they discharge from the program precise classes that had privileges, like the armed services veterans, or family members of the euthanasia staff? The euthanasia of Nazi was on no occasion voluntary. Most of the time, the euthanasia was seen to be involuntary rather than it being non-voluntary. Singer (2011) affirms that ‘doing away with useless mouths’, one of the phrases used by the individuals in charge reveals the program’s objectives. The capabilities of working and racial origin were some of the factors that were put into consideration to the patients who were to be killed. The Nazi belief in the necessity of preserving a pure Aryan Volk made this program and the whole holocaust to be possible (Singer, 1993). The proposals of euthanasia legislation are mainly focused on autonomy respect and the objectives of evading meaningless suffering. The vital difference in the Nazi euthanasia aims and the conventional proposals may be approved, but the argument could also be defended as one of the way of saying that the current strict rule on killing humans directly serves a suitable purpose (Singer, 1993). Reference Cresswell, W. (2003). Singers Infanticide: Ethically Justified. UCL Jurisprudence Rev., 290. Glock, H. J. (1994). The Euthanasia Debate in Germany‐Whats the Fuss?. Journal of applied philosophy, 11(2), 213-224. Glover, J. (2011). 3 Insanity, crankiness and evil–and other ways of thinking the unthinkable. Philosophy, Ethics and a Common Humanity: Essays in Honour of Raimond Gaita, 37. Preece, G. (2002). The Unthinkable & Unlivable Singer. Preece, G. R. (Ed.). (2002). Rethinking Peter Singer: A Christian Critique. InterVarsity Press. Singer, P. (1990). TheSinger-Affairand Practical Ethics: A Response. Analyse & Kritik, 12, 245-264. Singer, P. (1993). Taking Life: Humans. Excerpted from Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 175-217. Singer, P. (2011). Practical ethics, 3rd edition. Cambridge university press. Singer, P. (Ed.). (1986). Applied ethics. Oxford University Press. Uniacke, S. (1997). Replaceability and infanticide. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 31(2), 153-166.   Read More