The Philosophy of Human Rights and Views on Euthanasia - Essay Example

Running head: Euthanasia Human Rights and Euthanasia Name Institution Date submitted The right to life is a demand to avoid any violation of either biological or physical integrity of an individual. It is listed as the most important right of all. If a human being is deprived the right to live then all the other rights becomes futile (Immanuel Kant, 1785). Euthanasia has brought about a lot of controversies throughout the world on issues regarding the right to life (Albanese, 1996.). Euthanasia is referred to as the act of shortening life painlessly so as to end suffering where the patient is not expected to recover. It is derived from Greek eu, referring to well and thanatos referring to death (Quill et al,1992). The ancient Greek viewed illnesses as bothersome affliction and therefore the sick were allowed to commit suicide but if approved by the state. This act can further be categorized in two ways; non voluntary euthanasia and voluntary euthanasia. As for the non voluntary euthanasia, the patients cannot express the wish to die because of the various reasons like being in a comma, infants, senile dementia. These are people who cannot be able to communicate with other people (Feinberg, 1978). Voluntary euthanasia falls under the category where patients can express their wish to die but don’t. Euthanasia is carried out in several ways; active/ direct euthanasia, passive euthanasia and indirect euthanasia. Active/direct euthanasia involves the use of specific actions that are directed to bringing about death by using lethal drugs and injections. Passive euthanasia is where patients are allowed to die by withdrawing treatment or nourishment (Edwin & Dubose, 1999). For instance, when a patient signs a do not resuscitate (DNR) document. Finally, indirect euthanasia is at times referred to as the double effect. It involves treatment, pain relief which has side effects of quickening death. All the arguments about euthanasia are tethered around the rights to life and the right to die. The right to life as stated earlier is accepted as the basic human right and moral value based on the fact that, people want to live generally (Albanese, 1996.). But the big question that arises is what then should imply to them that are seriously ill and they no longer want to live. Do they then have a right to die? Many people lithe in pain and wish to terminate their lives but they do not have the physical strength or access to the means to do it painlessly. Many humanists argue that, there is special value attached to human life, but concludes that if an individual has decided on rational grounds that his/her life lost value and meaning, then that evaluation should be respected. Religious people argue that there is a moral distinction between acts which cause death in this case referring to active euthanasia and omissions which cause death referring to passive euthanasia, and conclude that the second one is morally permissible. But as for humanists they oppose the religious people stating that the first one is quicker and therefore it is kinder for the victims although both of them are painless. Conclusively, the death of a terminally ill and suffering patient is a merciful release for all who are actively involved and so it is very different from other suicides (Robert & Wennberg, 1989). The philosophy of rights is one of the hardest disciplines to understand as far as moral philosophy is concerned. Natural rights theorists believe and insist that men know of the existence or the nature of rights and they also hold on to that, it is important to uphold them in order to protect the moral autonomy of an individual against the atrocities of the society. However, it is worth noting that, rights can be at times considered and viewed not as ideals but as moral tying which if violated, they demand restitution or radical changes (Kastenbaum, 1995). For those who are for euthanasia, the quality of life is what matters most not the sanctity or the length of it that is important. If the life becomes unbearable because of pain and suffering from untreatable illnesses, then the patients should receive mercy and compassion by direct assistance in the dying process. Furthermore, a person have the right to choose the course of his/her own life therefore doctors should be allowed to act upon the individual liberty and desire to end his/her life (Amarasekara & Bagaric, 2002). They have a right to request doctors to end their lives without having them implicated with criminal charges or penalties. The withdrawal of life support and nutrition from patients who are in vegetative state and are less likely going to recover has been granted consent in many legal cases. There has been also the recognition of double effects in that the doctors have the requisite expertise to assess the effects, good or bad of the painkillers. As for the human rights and the recognition of euthanasia the argument can be based on the right to privacy. This is due to the fact that this is the case that has been used to permit the disconnection of artificial life support system in the case of hopeless patients. In the article 8 of the European convention, the interalia, states that a person has the right to respect for his private life. This means that a patient has a right to seek assistance to die. Many European courts has recognized that preventing patients from exercising their choice to put to an end the distress and the pain they may be going through may constitute an interference with their right to respect their private life (C de Than, 2002) Euthanasia is faced by several contradictions as it concerns the autonomy of the patients. When a patient is seriously ill, there are possibilities that there may be psychological ailments. This puts to question the sincere wish to death or a mental issue on a patient. It is worth noting that, a greater number of those people requesting euthanasia from terminal illnesses suffer from treatable mental illnesses, mostly resulting from depression. Protection to these patients can only be granted from the psychiatrist anytime there is a euthanasia request. With this, there can be certifications that the patient requesting for euthanasia is mentally well to avoid a case resulting from mental illnesses. There is a clear agreement that rationality is what gives dignity on human beings, and peoples dignity must be respected whatever the case. Therefore if a human being loses dignity and rationality through illness and pain, then they can legitimately request for euthanasia. By helping them to die in the circumstance of their choice will be respecting and protecting their dignity (Otlowski, 1997). Many doctors know that administering lethal injection to a patient is against practicing medicine duties but they have duty to do whatever is at their disposal to help their patients in regard to relieving pains (Baum & Malley, 1990). This is done through allowing the patient to die while doing everything possible to ensure that the death is painless. In cases where passive euthanasia is painful then giving large doses of painkillers is permissible even if it will later cause them to die fast. This brings about the argument about double effects, whereby there is a moral difference between a harmful effect occurring as a side effect of pursuing a good end and causing the harm as a means to a good end (Baum & Malley, 1990). According to Singer, there is a dire need to minimizing needless suffering on human beings. He suggested that traditional sanctity of life ethics must be changed in the favor of more compassionate and responsive end of life code (Kuhse & Singer, 1993). This was emphasized by the need to temper rather that eliminating respect for life by accommodating indispensable quality of life considerations. It is possible to determine the quality of life of a patient but there is a great importance to allow patients draw their won conclusions as third party assessments may lead to misassumptions. Moreover, the right to escape from consistent and futile terminal pains and suffering through voluntary euthanasia honors’ the right principle of life as patients are the ones who initiated the choice of his/her end. Helga Kuhse stated that, a decision to remove or do away with life preserving treatment is an important and morally relevant cause of death to suffering patients (Kuhse & Singer, 1993). The issue of withdrawing these services to the critically ill patients who are never going to recover is said to be totally different from injecting them with lethal drugs to hasten their end. This therefore means that voluntary euthanasia is a compassionate option of helping patients have a painless ending. In regard to fundamental rights, there are ones rights to make choices which are independent without external influences. This is referred to as an expression of autonomy. However, when it get to actively ending one’s life through euthanasia, an individual encounter a widespread debate over the rights of an individual to make that choice. Many argue that, euthanasia allow the terminally ill have honorable and dignified ending without pain and therefore they should be allowed to go for euthanasia if that is their wish (Weir, 1997). Forcing people to do against their wish is a violation of personal freedom and human rights and therefore it is not moral to compel people to continue living with unbearable pain and suffering. Proponents of euthanasia imply that decision to end one’s life due to unbearable pain or sickness is a clear expression of one’s right to personal autonomy. Allowing individuals to have their lives terminated will therefore mean that those looking for it die with dignity and without necessarily suffering. There is no value in suffering and therefore allowing people who have no hope for recovery go through it is not fair. By allowing them to go through the painless death will be saving them from a lot of pain and suffering which they are going through and will continue going through until nature takes its course. As stated earlier, euthanasia discussions revolve around fundamental human rights to autonomy and the right to privacy; these being the backbone of medical ethics. Autonomy recognizes people’s chances to understand and make decisions without any interventions and have access to accurate information (Klagsbrun, 1991). However, it is worth noting that, even after a patient express his/her desire to die, this does not make euthanasia ethical or acceptable in many countries (Brescia, 1991). Countries like Canada and USA recognize the patient’s rights to autonomy and privacy and therefore recommend patients to be given the right to refuse life prolonging treatments if after all the are not going to recover (Winkler, 1985). In many states there has been introduction of legal living wills where by patients choose euthanasia and have the physicians who administer euthanasia be legally protected (Jackson & Young, 1979). However, in the situation where the patient is unable to communicate, the living will is rarely administered and signed in standard medical practice (Wanzer et al, 1980). The American, British, Canadian and the World Medical Association dictates that deliberate termination of a life is unethical irrespective of the patients requests, however, it is allowed to honor terminally ill patients request to let the disease take its due course (William, 1991). Physicians who withdraw life sustaining devices from patients who are never going to recover are no longer condemned but civil or criminal laws while else those who administer lethal injections risk facing criminal and civil laws (Latimer, 1991). This therefore indicates that the jurisdictions of euthanasia depend on whether it is passive or active (Lynn, 1989) In a country like Netherlands where euthanasia is legal, there are guideline and regulations which go with this action so as it can be regarded as a violation of no rights. First, the request should be voluntary, stable and enduring. In this matter the patient should not be coerced to make any decision. Secondly, the patient must be undergoing suffering that is intolerable. This is due to the fact that many argue that life is terminated if the life is undesirable and it must not be desirable anyway (Feinberg, 1978). Conclusively, the patients should be allowed to end their lives if the sicknesses they are having will never recover or the pain they are enduring are too much to bear. This is affected through the realization of the rights to autonomy and privacy. If a human being loses dignity and rationality through illness and pain, then they can legitimately request for euthanasia. By helping them to die in the circumstance of their choice will be respecting and protecting their dignity, and relieving them that are actively involved in taking care of the patients who will eventually die, and gaining economically for not spending much on prolonging life that will in the long run end. References Amarasekara, K Bagaric, M., (2002). The Viciousness of Rights in the Euthanasia Debate, 6 Int’l J Hum Rgts 19 at 21. Albanese, A. (1996). A question of human rights. The Sydney Morning Herald Baum, P., & O’Malley, E. (1990). Euthanasia: Attitudes and practices of medical practitioners. Medical Journal of Australia, 161, 137-144. C de Than (2002). No Convention Right to Die, 66 JoCL 312 Edwin R., Dubose (1999). Historical Perspectives: Physician Aid-In-D ying (Active Voluntary Euthanasia),” in Doctor-A ssisted Suicide and the Euthanasia Movement, ed. by Gary E. McCuen (Hudson, Wis.: GEM,) Feinberg, J (1978). Voluntary euthanasia and the inalienable right to life. Philosophy and public affairs; 7, 2:93-123. Kuhse, H., & Singer, P. (1993). Voluntary euthanasia and the nurses: An Australian survey. International Journal of Nursing Science, 30, 311-322. 9. Immanuel Kant, 1785. The Groundwork of The Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by H. J. Paton as "The Moral Law", Routledge, London and New York, 1948. Jackson, D.L, Younger, S (1979). Patient’s autonomy and death with dignity . New England journal of medicine. 301, 404-408 Klagsbrun, S.C (1991). Physician-assisted suicide: A double dilemma. Journal of pain and symptoms management, 6, 325-328 Kastenbaum, R. (1995). Death, Society, and Human Experience (5th edition). Boston: Latimer, E.J (1991). Ethical decision-making in the care of the dying and its application to clinical practice. Journal of pain and symptom management. 6. 329 – 336 Lynn, J. (1988). The health care professional’s role when active euthanasia is sought. Journal of palliative care, 4, 100-102 M Otlowski (1997) Voluntary Euthanasia and the Common Law (Clarendon Press, Oxford) 213. Robert N. Wennberg 1989, Terminal Choices: Euthanasia, Suicide, and the Right to Die , Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,3-4. Quill TE, Cassel CK, Meier DE (1992). Care of the hopelessly ill – proposed criteria for physician assisted suicide. New Eng J Med ; 327: 1380-84. Wanzer,S.F, Federman,D.D, Adelstein, S.J., Cassel, C.K., Cassem, E.H., Cranford. .R.E (1989). The physician’s responsibility towards hopelessly ill patients: New England journal of medicine. 320, 844-849 Winkler E. (1985). Decisions about life and death: assessing the law reform commission and the presidential commission reports. Journal of medical humanities and bioethics, 6. 74-89 William, J.R (1991). When suffering is unbearable: Physicians, Assisted suicide and euthanasia. Journal of Palliative Care, 7, 47-49 Weir, R. F. (1997). Physician-Assisted Suicide. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Read More