In What Circumstances Is Voluntary Euthanasia Morally Permissible - Essay Example

Voluntary Euthanasia is morally accepted if five individual conditions are met . (Young Respect of final demands is a sign of self determination or cerebral competence. People have a general concept in how they see their last days. Dying is shown as part of religion, as a day to day process to be respected and worshiped. End of life decisions are a time of taking responsibility. James Rachels considers euthanasia morally incorrect.(Rachels 1999) Callahan considers that the patient ,who was considering Euthanasia , wasnt possible able to make his decision with self determination; therefore euthanasia would be one person taking control of the life of another person, thus murder too. The author would like to confer with both these men. Euthanasia is not morally correct to a moral society In both Rachels and Callahans opinion, it is never morally correct to give such omnipotent power to another individual in order to make such a detrimental decision. If the line is crossed, other forms of Euthanasia will become part of the Social norms. The essay will establish the 5 conditions necessary in order to perform voluntary Euthanasia then they will be refuted using the arguments by Rachels and Callahan. The author will conclude by explaining the moral implication of approving of the role of the "Master Doer" of Euthanasia, it will open the door to all other forms as we have seen in history. Euthanasia is the taking of another persons life when she cannot do so herself. It differs from " assisted suicide" as the person is not in the physical condition to administer the drugs to kill herself directly. According to those countries which have voted voluntary Euthanasia, five conditions must be fulfilled: 1)The personal must be terminally ill with no hopes of recovery. 2)She will not benefit from any "miracle cure" as her illness is too advanced. 3)"The pain has become too intolerable." This has been quoted directly as the phrase itself is highly subjective. Or life has become such a burden which has been defined as a form of suffering as she cannot live without the assistance of life support machines. 4)The person has expressed a competent and voluntary desire to die or if she has lost the ability, there is an existing will or testimony that was drawn up expressing this wish. 5)The last condition is not being able to commit suicide without the assistance of outside help. (Young 2010) These conditions were based on the principle of autonomy, competences or self determination.(Young 2010). It had been previously established that the decision was made on the premise that the person had been competent, self determined and autonomous at the time of making the decision. Daniel Callahan expresses his disagreement. Self determination implies that the self determines her own individual outcome without involving the help or assistance of another being. (Callahan 1992) Euthanasia implies the need of a second person. In the case of Euthanasia, it would not be morally correct to involve a second person. Just in having the need of the doctor or another individual to administer the drug to commit the act gives too much power over another individual in which he has no right. "The patient is soliciting the moral and physical assistance of another individual".(Callahan 1992) He has lost the right or ability of self determination and given the power to kill himself to another person. The power to kill is morally wrong. (Callahan 1992 p52) Medicine has in its own right, an obligation to maintain life and not to take it away. The function of maintaining life is the physical or biological aspect of life only.(Callahan p52) The medical profession cannot determine the emotional or psychological burden of suffering or being on life support. There is no morality involved. They are mechanics of the trade. The words burden and suffering are relative and subjective to the person. Each persons level of suffering differs according to his environment, culture and background. His tolerance level will not be the same as another person with the same terminal illness. The level of burden is relative to his personal concept and morals of his family background and religious upbringing. A doctor has no training in determining the level of these moral factors. With the advancement of the longevity of man, doctors have replaced the biological function of humanity, they have not replace God. With the advancement of longevity, illnesses have become more catastrophic and drawn out. Though there are advances in medical knowledge and the quality of life, we have created a society with little dictators in hospitals. They should not have the power to decide who lives and dies. They are trained to base their criteria on the mechanical functioning of the body. Patients have given them the roles of deciding when and how to die. For a doctor to help a patient die, he would have to share the same value structure. Is he a family member? Does he belong to the same religion? As these questions are rhetorical, they show how Callahans arguments contradict the established consensus used in ascertaining whether voluntary Euthanasia is warranted. Once again the doctor does not maintain such power nor does he have the moral responsibility to make such decisions. (Callagan 1992) The five conditions ignores self determination when the conditions are analyzed. A doctor has no right to judge that life has become a burden. The word alone is a subjective contribution to moral abuse : financial, convenience, physical, mental. Who is he to judge? Making such a powerful decision implies that he knows all his patients well enough to react. There are so many elements involved. Just in the word alone, it is highly subjective and perhaps the doctor is no longer competent in making such decisions. The arguments have involved the doctors responsibility. The patient who is in the last phase of a terminal illness and is suffering from intolerable pain cannot possibly be competent enough to decide to commit voluntary Euthanasia. It is an euphemism in its own sorts. According to Rachels, if he is suffering he cannot express his self determination.(Rachels 1999) Pain renders a patient unable to make coherent decisions. Secondly, our whole moral ethics have been based on the sanctity of life in the Judeo-Christian-Moslem Religions. Suicide is a sin. The right to life is an argument in most countries. This last argument leads to Rachels differentiation between active and passive Euthanasia. As previously stated, he does not agree with voluntary Euthanasia. He has explained the right to kill and letting someone die can be differentiated by the consequences but at the inception both are basically the same: murder . (Rachels 1999) Passive Euthanasia is the cessation of treatment which is the "intentional termination of life" otherwise known as "omission". (Rachels 1999) According to the principle of voluntary Euthanasia, this can be morally acceptable by some as it can be alleviated with the double effect syndrome.(Young 2010) The final consequence can be hidden as a patient who is no longer receiving treatment but is receiving morphine for the pain has the double effect of proceeding towards death as morphine speeds up the process. The direct intention of terminating life is not a direct consequence of the act. A side road has been taken. As long as the drug is not used as an overdose to arrive at the same consequence of the act, it can be considered a morally acceptable or neutral act. The line drawn between the effect of a painkiller and the effect of an active form of progressing to death without it being an overdose is a fine line. In hospice care, the medical attention required exceeds the actual needs of the patient and thus can be a form of un-supervised euthanasia. The judgment of the need of the double effect syndrome is also a moral appraisal and gives the power to another person thus ridding one from self determination. The patient is judge to need a pain killer in guise to have the double effect syndrome. Had the doctor made the decision or has the patient played an active role? Once again the subject of morality is put on the back burner. No one has talked about the choice of medication or life ending possibilities. Active Euthanasia is the giving of medication to terminate life or "commission". Though Rachels says there is no moral difference in either as they are both in the intent of taking life. (Rachels 1999) It is the consequence that changes. There are some who say when suffering is so bad it is morally correct to terminate life than to prolong the suffering.(Young 2010) Nothing has been said about the state of burden as a form of suffering. If the conditions have been fulfilled and the level of suffering from the burden of depending on the necessity of the machine outweighs the benefit, a patient can be requesting active or passive Euthanasia. Two questions are brought forth: Has the patients been autonomous in his decision and has his entourage deemed him competent in his decision making process. If self determination has been established, then this possibly can be the most morally neutral voluntary Euthanasia. Doctors do not have the right to make the "moral appraisal" of withholding medication or releasing a patient from a machine. This corresponds to Callahans theory that doctors do not have the right to make such a moral decision when they are endowed with the maintenance of keeping life. In both opinions, society has put doctors in a role of deity. They have the final decision of pulling the plug or keeping the patient alive. Rachels turns the roles by proving that neither is morally acceptable. He contradict himself by saying that if there were a choice active Euthanasia would be better than passive in severe cases. He uses this as an example to prove that neither can be considered valid. Passive Euthanasia can be worse when biological death is approaching as it makes the process more drawn out and painful. A stage four cancer patient who is put into a hospice and withheld treatment will have a long and arduous process of dying. As he is suffering, he cannot be considered competent in his decision making. Taking Rachels argument, his choice of Euthanasia whether active or passive is not longer valid and therefore is morally wrong. In a different light, someone who suffers is not governed by self determination. His choice of giving someone else the power to chose for him, shows that the whole principle of voluntary Euthanasia morally wrong. If doctors or others are given the right to chose to terminate the lives of others, the precedent is set for our aging society to find reasons to facilitate the process of dying. Other periods of history showed than Euthanasia first started with sick then disabled then populations of people. Morality dictates to history. References Callahan, Daniel, "When Self-Determination Runs Amok", The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 22, No. 2. (Mar. - Apr., 1992), pp. 52-55. http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/CallahanSELFDETERMINEAMOK.pdf Rachels, James, "Active and Passive Euthanasia", THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, Vol. 292, January 9, 1975, pp. 78-80. http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Rachels_Euthanasia.pdf Young, Robert, "Voluntary Euthanasia", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . Read More