Involuntary Passive Euthanasia - Coursework Example

Involuntary passive euthanasia Introduction Euthanasia is the act of deliberately taking the life of a fellow human being for ensuring that the person whose life is taken is allowed relief from suffering (Wreen 1988, p.637). The debate concerning euthanasia in the modern world has been ongoing for several decades and it has brought about many emotions among the parties that are participating in it. While this may be the case, one will find that euthanasia tends to be conducted on those individuals who are suffering from terminal conditions and are either expected to remain in a vegetative state or to die anyway. This is done because of the mercy that either physicians or the family might feel towards the suffering that a patient might be undergoing and this prompts them to ask that the latter’s life be brought to an end as a means of alleviating the suffering (Brody 1975, p.94). A result has been that euthanasia has come to gain widespread support in modern society with some groups pushing for its outright legalisation so that the process can be conducted much easily without having to skip many legal hurdles. Involuntary passive euthanasia is performed on an individual who has the ability to either give or withhold consent concerning whether to be allowed to live or not (Harris 2001, p.367). Under such circumstances, the individual is left to die against their will and this creates a situation where his wishes are not respected and they are forced to die despite their desire to continue living. Involuntary passive euthanasia is one of the most controversial forms of euthanasia because it involves the withdrawal of all possible options that might save an individual, against his will, despite his desire to continue living. Involuntary passive euthanasia has in some cases, come to be compared to murder because the will of the individual who undergoes it is not put into consideration. Utilitarianism is an action that is judged able to provide the maximum form of happiness not only for an individual, but for all the people that are around such an individual. In this way, it involves the maximisation of utility so that all the parties that are directly involved either in the life of an individual or in the action that an individual takes, come to be affected in a positive manner by it (Singer 2011, pp.202-203). Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which calls for an action to be able to provide the maximum benefit possible for all the stakeholders in the life of an individual and in a situation where it is impossible for benefits to spread to a maximum, them the utilitarian principle will not have been accomplished. It is, however, essential to note that the utilitarian principle does not provide for a hierarchy of the maximisation of benefits and it only brings about a situation where there is a demand that a benefit as a whole be maximised. Involuntary passive euthanasia Involuntary passive euthanasia is done in such a manner that allows for the hastening of death through the withdrawal of all forms of support so that nature can take its course. Under such circumstances, a patient is put through a process where all forms of actions to ensure that his life is prolonged are removed and these include halting medications, turning off respirators, as well as the discontinuation of food and water. This creates a situation where an individual ends up dying of natural causes such as dehydration, starvation, or not being able to breathe, and there are instances where a choice is made not to resuscitate a patient and this leads to their death. Involuntary passive euthanasia is performed on individuals who are undergoing suffering whose end result is natural death and the process to hasten their death can be considered to be an act to ensure a swifter end to their suffering. Involuntary passive euthanasia is performed on an individual who has the ability to either give or withhold consent concerning whether to be allowed to live or not. This definition has shown that involuntary passive euthanasia is often applied on an individual against his will and this person is left to die because of the belief that it is what is best for him. While this may the case, conducting involuntary passive euthanasia brings about a situation where there is no respect for the wishes of an individual and this can be considered a violation of their rights (Cheyfitz 2000, p.5). It is essential to note that when this form of euthanasia is conducted, it is done in total disregard for the autonomy of the individual since his wishes are not adhered to. An example of this is a case where a patient, despite being under a great deal of pain, desires to continue living despite the circumstances that he is undergoing. In a situation where this is disregarded, either by his physician or family, and all medication are withdrawn to facilitate his death, the patient’s autonomy comes to be completely disregarded. It should be recognised that a patient’s autonomy is extremely important because it allows family members to determine whether it is the wish of the patient to die or not. In case the patient does not wish to die through the withdrawal of the medication that keeps him alive, then his desires have to be respected and all that is possible should be done in order to preserve his life. However, this is not often the case in involuntary passive euthanasia because the patient’s autonomy is not respected. It leads to a situation where despite their pleas or demand that their lives be saved, their physicians or members of their families choose to make the decision for them and decide that all facilities needed to keep them alive are withdrawn (Jackson 2006, p.137). This creates a situation where despite a patient’s desire to live, his autonomy is not respected and he ends up dying against his will. One of the biggest justifications for involuntary passive euthanasia is that it is done in the best interests of a patient. The best interests of patients are often a motivation behind their being left to die despite their desire to continue living (Chapple, Ziebland, McPherson, and Herxheimer 2006, p.706). There are certain situations where physicians conclude that despite their best efforts, their patients are more likely than not to die and that to continue providing them with medication would be futile because it would only prolong their suffering. Under such circumstances, the physicians decide that the best way to help their patients would be to let them die because this would allow these patients to get relief from the pain that they are suffering. However, despite the physician realising that it would be futile to keep a patient alive only to prolong his suffering; the patient himself might still have the desire to live and as a result will even request the physician to do all he can to ensure that his life is saved. This creates a moral dilemma for the physician because from his professional view or assessment, the patient does not have a chance of returning to a normal life through a lessening of the pain that he is feeling and that his life cannot be saved through any conventional medical intervention. As a result, the physician decides that the best thing to do for the patient would be to let him die since this would not only ensure that he is released from his suffering, but also that he is able get relief from the emotional strain of undergoing pain on a daily basis (Perrett 1996, p.309). Therefore, despite doing what he believes to be in the best interests of the patient, the physician will have disregarded the patient’s desire, which is to continue getting treatment so that he can continue to live. While involuntary passive euthanasia is normally conducted under circumstances that are believed to be in the best interests of a patient, there are times when it is done in the interests of family and friends (Dowbiggin 2002, p.223). This is especially the case where family members come to believe that their loved one is suffering unnecessarily as a result of their being under a lot of pain or emotionally over their impending death. Furthermore, family or friends might be affected by the manner in which their loved one is living his life, especially where he does not live the same quality of life that he was used to yet he is determined to ensure that he remains alive for as long as possible. Under such circumstances, a family might choose to endorse the withdrawal of life sustaining medication even if it is against the wishes of the patient. Moreover, involuntary passive euthanasia can be conducted under circumstances where there is a possibility that the cost of ensuring that life sustaining treatment is available for the patient is extremely high and that if the family continues to facilitate the cost, they might either end up in serious debt or have to live under much reduced conditions. Therefore, in order to ensure that they maintain the quality of life that they are used to as well as to relieve themselves of the financial burden of keeping a loved one under care, the family might choose to allow the withdrawal of life sustaining medication. Even though it might be against the wishes of a patient, involuntary passive euthanasia ends up being conducted as a means of making sure that the financial and emotional wellbeing of family and friends is catered for (Otani 2010, p.49). In this way, it becomes possible for the family to make peace with the death of their loved one early enough and to continue to live their lives as best as they can. Utilitarianism The principle of utility has two main definitions, namely rule and act utilities, and these are mainly based on their application. Act utility is practical in a situation where actions are taken based on particular circumstances while rule utility is applied in situations where there is a assortment of a set of rules. In this paper, involuntary passive euthanasia will be discussed based on act utility since the actions being undertaken are those based on a particular circumstance, and how it has a direct effect on all those involved. Utilitarianism is a concept that holds the notion that actions should neither be considered to be good or bad as long as they bring about happiness to the individuals conducting it. This concept is one that endorses the achievement of happiness in any manner possible as long as the actions conducted to achieve it are done in a manner that enhances happiness to as many people as possible (Hooker 2011, p.148). Therefore, as long as happiness is achieved among a significant number of individuals, the actions that were conducted to ensure that it was achieved, whether good or bad, is not a moral issue. Utilitarianism propagates the belief that actions can only be defined as being either morally right or wrong under circumstances where the consequences of n action are of such great significance that the person who has conducted it is forced by the rest of society to act in a manner that is preferred. However, if the action does not result in any great significance, especially in the case where it does not result in any serious harm, then the action does not have any serious moral significance. The ability of individuals to undertake actions that are normally considered morally wrong, with the intention of bringing about happiness is, according to utilitarianism, morally sound. This concept considers that all actions are good in themselves and that it is the intention of individuals who conduct them that determines whether the action becomes morally right or wrong. In circumstances where an action ends up resulting in negative consequences, the individual who was responsible for it should either be exhorted to change their ways or punished because their actions did not have any value. When individuals are willing to take actions, which bring about happiness not only to themselves but also to those around them, they are able to achieve utilitarian value. Utilitarianism relies almost entirely on the theory of intrinsic value which states that something should be considered to be good in itself and that consequences are the ones that come from it. Therefore, in a situation where an individual takes action that would normally be considered morally wrong, the consequences of the action should be measured according to the level of happiness it brings about (Hooker 2002, p.152). The utilitarian tradition holds the belief that all actions should be measured according to a balance between pleasure and pain and that pleasure should always be considered over pain since it is the point where true happiness derives. The intrinsic value of two alternative actions have to be compared in such a manner that they are weighed according to the amount of pain or pleasure that each of them is likely to produce as a consequence. Before an individual takes an action, he has to determine the sum of the pain or pleasure that is most likely to derive from his action not only immediately, but also in the future and through creating a balance between these two options, decide what should be the best course of action. Utilitarianism, therefore, takes into consideration the various effects of diverse actions from an interpersonal level and this is done to ensure that the actions of individuals are measured against their effects on the lives of others within their societies. All actions that are undertaken by individuals have to be measured based on whether they add intrinsic value or disvalue to their lives and they have to strive to ensure that the balance created is one where pleasure is greater than pain. Therefore, all actions have to be undertaken based on a measure that is concerned over the good or evil tendencies of actions and their effect on those directly affected by them. A criticism of the utilitarian perspective is that it does not recognise that there are some features of society or some actions that cannot be measured based on either pleasure or pain. Among these is knowledge or love, which cannot be measured based on whether they are based on pleasure or pain. The hedonistic value theory that is contained within utilitarianism does not also recognise that the value of life is greater than anything else and that it cannot be measured under such simple terms as a balance of pleasure over pain. Because of the value of life, it is essential to note that it is more complex than any other factor and this ensures that it cannot be just defined based on utilitarian terms. There are certain circumstances where some feelings of emotions cannot be adequately broken down in order to bring them in line with utilitarian values and this creates a situation where it is difficult to define or measure them according to whether they are based on pleasure or pain (Dancy 2000, p.219). Utilitarianism propagates the belief that individuals have to think of the consequences of their actions before undertaking them because this is the only way that they can ensure that they uphold the measure of pleasure over pain. This situation is not based on reality because many individuals tend not to think beyond the immediate consequences of their actions until it is too late to make any changes. While the achievement of happiness over unhappiness should be considered the greatest goal, it is essential that other factors in life be put into consideration. In utilitarian thinking, any action that does not bring about either happiness or unhappiness or does not create pleasure over pain is one that does not have value. Utilitarianism in involuntary passive euthanasia Utilitarianism holds that an action can only be judged as good or bad is a result of the consequences, which might arise from it and this, is the reason why this concept has come to be used to justify involuntary passive euthanasia. According to utilitarianism, an action that is right is one whose result is of great usefulness and those actions that do not bring about useful results create a situation where they do not have any justification (McCloskey 1957, p.466). Therefore, because an action is neither good nor bad, the utilitarian perspective propagates the belief that it is the intention of an individual that determines its value and this value is one that should be measured based on whether it brings about pain or pleasure. As a result of this belief, utilitarianism is an ethical theory which does not give much thought to the respect of individuals as autonomous beings and this creates a situation where the wishes of individuals can be sacrificed at any time for the sake of the achievement of overall good. Under these circumstances, even though an individual might have his own wishes that he would like to be fulfilled, these wishes can be disregarded especially if the intention of this disregard is that it might bring about the overall happiness of others. Because utilitarianism is based on the usefulness of actions, it is essential to note that even though an action might result in the inconvenience of an individual, as long as it brings about benefits for others, then the action can be considered right. Utilitarianism promotes the calculation of possible consequences that might come about as a result of actions that are taken by individuals (Smart 1958, p.542). However, making calculations concerning all the possible consequences that might come about as a result of individual actions is almost completely impossible. This is because despite all the effort that an individual might put in ensuring that he measures the consequences of his actions before he takes them, the fact is that no human being can be able to think of all the possibilities. According to the utilitarian view, it is a requirement that all actions be assigned values as a means of ensuring that there is a minimisation of any harmful effects that might come from them. This stance creates a dilemma because while one individual might believe than an action that he is undertaking is good, another might not see it that way and will believe that the same action is actually morally wrong. An example of such a circumstance would to make a comparison between the value of money and that of life or the value of human dignity being compared to the value of time. Under such a situation, it would be difficult to come to the real value of such an intangible thing as life because in reality, the value of life is not comparable to anything. Furthermore, human dignity is one of the aspects of life, which cannot be effectively measured, and its values are based on how different societies define it (Strous 2006, p.27). Therefore, the impossibility of being able to calculate the value of the consequences of different actions as well as some aspects of human nature means that utilitarianism does not hold all the answers. From a utilitarian view, involuntary passive euthanasia would increase happiness while at the same ensuring that there is a decrease in pain. From this point of view, conducting euthanasia on a patient even though the patient does not want to die is a morally correct action because it allows his pain to be brought to an end while his family is able to achieve happiness because they no longer have to watch their loved one suffer anymore (Kagan 1984, p.239). It is also essential to note that the utilitarian view confronts the patient’s problem directly through ensuring that whether he has given his consent or not, the pain that he is suffering is brought to an end through the withholding of the medication needed to keep him alive. In such a situation, the utilitarian view is of the opinion that involuntary passive euthanasia should be conducted only under a circumstance that would ensure the greatest happiness for as many individuals as possible because this will help in the determination of the moral value of the action of aiding in the ending of a life. Therefore, despite the initial action of intentionally ending a life being considered morally wrong by many, because it results in the alleviation of pain as well as bringing happiness to a greater number of people, the action ends up being morally right. In this instance, the utilitarian view can be seen through the intrinsic value brought about by the action that aided in the creation of happiness for the patient’s family. The utilitarian view of involuntary passive euthanasia is that when an individual is terminally ill, he is not able to enjoy the good things in life because he is in constant pain. Even if the pain from his illness has not reached serious levels, it is more likely than not that the pain that he is feeling will get even worse. Furthermore, because of his illness, and in case he has been confined as a result, he does not have any other diversionary activity that will bring him the happiness necessary to balance out the pain that he is feeling. Therefore, the entire experience of a terminally ill individual is one that is negative because he is in too much pain to enjoy life in a manner that he is used to (Michalsen and Reinhart 2006, p.1304). While at the beginning of his illness an individual might still be able to enjoy some of the activities that made his life pleasurable, there comes a time when he is no longer able to do so because as the illness progresses, he ends up feeling more pain than pleasure. The increasing amount of pain that an individual feels during the course of his illness, especially when it is terminal, from a utilitarian perspective is unnecessary. This is because the pain not only decreases the quality of life that the individual feels, but also creates a situation where members of their own families as well as friends end up carrying the emotional burden of watching them suffer. Therefore, in order to remedy this situation, it is essential that the individual be let to die, with or without his consent because not only will his misery be brought to a close, but the members of his family will become relieved and even achieve some form of happiness because their loved one will not be suffering anymore. In the context of involuntary passive euthanasia, it is essential to note that utilitarianism comes to contradict itself through the belief that an individual has sovereignty over his own body and that not even the state can interfere with his right to do with it as he will. This is contradictory because utilitarianism also stands for involuntary passive euthanasia where an individual is left to die despite his wish to live. If an individual is allowed to do what he wishes with his own body, then it is his right to refuse being removed from the treatment that is necessary to keep him alive (Harris 2001, p.367). Furthermore, without the support of an individual, no matter what the circumstances, family members or physicians have any right to deny him treatment because to do so would be to violate his right to do with his body as he wishes. Therefore, while utilitarianism supports involuntary passive euthanasia through the justification that the death of a terminally ill patient will lead to an end of suffering as well as the happiness of their family or friends, it is in contrast with the utilitarian belief in individual autonomy (Norcross 2009, p.81). When an individual is to be let to die against his will, not only will it cause him great distress, hence unhappiness, but the same unhappiness will occur among those who make the choice to have him euthanized, even though in a passive manner. When it comes to involuntary passive euthanasia, utilitarianism further contradicts itself through the belief that it is not right to kill innocent individuals. This is justified through the belief that if an individual knows that he is going to die, he might end up suffering considerable as a result of the anxiety that he has concerning his going to die at any time (Bamgbose 2004, p.111). The anxiety that such an individual suffers goes against the utilitarian tradition because it results in a reduction in the levels of his happiness and might end up causing him pain. Therefore, when involuntary passive euthanasia is approved by a family or physician, it becomes a source of great unhappiness for a patient because his final days of moments are spent being emotionally hurt by the actions of people that he believed cared for his wishes. Furthermore, it is possible that the individual who is to be passively euthanized involuntarily might still have hope that a cure for his illness will be discovered and that he will finally be able to live a normal life. When his family chooses to have him euthanized, it creates a situation where the individual no longer has any hope and this result in unhappiness due to his pain and feeling of betrayal through taking an action that is against his wishes. Conclusion The discussion above has attempted to show that involuntary passive euthanasia is performed on an individual who has the ability to either give or withhold consent concerning whether to be killed or not. It has shown that among the justifications for involuntary passive euthanasia is that it is done in the best interests of a patient. Furthermore, there are times when this process is done under circumstances that are believed to be in best the interests of an individual’s family and friends. Since the discussion has dealt with involuntary passive euthanasia from a utilitarian perspective, utilitarianism has been defined as a concept that actions should be considered neither good nor bad as long as they bring about happiness to the individuals conducting it. Moreover, utilitarianism has been found to have a reliance on the theory of intrinsic value so that something should be considered to be good in itself and that consequences are the ones that come from it. Therefore, from a utilitarian view, involuntary passive euthanasia would increase happiness while at the same ensuring that there is a decrease in pain. In addition, the utilitarian view is that when an individual is terminally ill, he is not able to enjoy the good things in life because he is in constant pain. Finally, in the context of involuntary passive euthanasia, it has been noted that utilitarianism comes to contradict itself through the belief that an individual has sovereignty over his own body because the process involves the violation of individual autonomy. References Bamgbose, O. (2004). Euthanasia: Another Face of Murder. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 48 (1): 111–21. Brody, B. (1975). "Voluntary Euthanasia and the Law". In Kohl, Marvin. Beneficient Euthanasia. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. Chapple, A., Ziebland, S., McPherson, A. & Herxheimer, A. (2006). What people close to death say about euthanasia and assisted suicide: a qualitative study. J Med Ethics 32 (12): 706–10. Cheyfitz, K. (2000). Who Decides? The Connecting Thread of Euthanasia, Eugenics, and Doctor-Assisted Suicide. Omega 40 (1): 5–16. Dancy, J. (2000). Mills Puzzling Footnote. Utilitas 12: 219–222. Dowbiggin, I. (2002). A Rational Coalition: Euthanasia, Eugenics, and Birth Control in America, 1940-1970. The Journal of Policy History 14 (3): 223–260. Harris, N.M. (2001). The euthanasia debate. J R Army Med Corps 147 (3): 367–70 Hooker, B. (2002). Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality. London: Clarendon Press. Hooker, B. (2011). "The Demandingness Objection". In Chappell, Timothy. The problem of moral demandingness: new philosophical essays. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Jackson, J. (2006). Ethics in medicine. Cambridge: Polity. Kagan, S. (1984). Does Consequentialism Demand too Much? Recent Work on the Limits of Obligation. Philosophy & Public Affairs 13 (3): 239–254. McCloskey, H.J. (1957). An Examination of Restricted Utilitarianism. The Philosophical Review 66 (4): 466–485. Michalsen, A. & Reinhart, K. (2006). "Euthanasia": A confusing term, abused under the Nazi regime and misused in present end-of-life debate". Intensive Care Med 32 (9): 1304–10. Norcross, A. (2009). Two Dogmas of Deontology: Aggregation, Rights and the Separateness of Persons. Social Philosophy and Policy 26: 81–82. Otani, I. (2010). "Good Manner of Dying" as a Normative Concept: "Autocide", "Granny Dumping" and Discussions on Euthanasia/Death with Dignity in Japan". International Journal of Japanese Society 19 (1): 49–63. Perrett, R.W. (1996). Buddhism, euthanasia and the sanctity of life. J Med Ethics 22 (5): 309–13. Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics, Third Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smart, R.N. (1958). Negative Utilitarianism. Mind 67 (268): 542–543. Strous, R.D. (2006). Nazi Euthanasia of the Mentally Ill at Hadamar. American Journal of Psychiatry 163 (1): 27. Wreen, M. (1988). The Definition of Euthanasia. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 48 (4): 637–53. Read More