Words: 3362
In medical ethics and medical law, patient autonomy is a central pivot. Patients have the right to refuse treatment even if this leads to their death. Shouldn’t people also have the right to determine the moment of dying, if they are In a situation which Is unbearable, and without prospect of Improvement? Discuss. Contemporary society and modern medicine are faced with contentious policy decisions and perhaps none of those is more difficult to reconcile than that of euthanasia.
Euthanasia seems to be a moral debate more than a political one, where there is major disagreement over what constitutes the ethically and legally crucial preference between killing and allowing to die. The alleged difference between withdrawing or withholding treatment from a patient seems to be morally Justified, while actively killing is morally worse than allowing to die. This paper aims to show that in reality, there does not seem to be any morally significant deference between active or passive euthanasia.
Therefore, patients should have the right to determine the moment of their death but, only if they are In a situation which is unbearable, and without prospect of Improvement. We already permit passive euthanasia In some circumstances. Since active euthanasia seems morally equivalent, therefore, both can be Justified In some circumstances. And while permitting the latter might have some unintended consequences, legislative safeguards will minimize these, and the respect for autonomy it displays should be sufficient justification for introduction of such a program. The term “euthanasia” is derived from Greek, literally meaning “good death”.
Taken in its common usage however, euthanasia refers to the termination of a person’s life, to end their suffering, usually from an incurable or terminal condition. Various types of euthanasia are recognized. Active euthanasia refers to the deliberate act, usually through the Intentional administration of lethal drugs, to end an incurably or terminally Ill patient’s life. On the other hand, supporters of euthanasia use another term, “passive euthanasia” to describe the deliberate withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging medical treatment resulting in the patient’s death.
In my opinion, every terminally ill patient must have the fundamental right to voluntary euthanasia. The law must recognize the principle of personal autonomy and self-determination, which is the right of every human being to make decisions regarding their own body ND these decisions, must be respected. For example, patients suffering from terminally ill diseases that wish to end their life but are incapable of doing so should have the right to a physician-assisted suicide. However, doctors should be in no way obligated to perform euthanasia if they do not want to.
No medical staff that are opposed to euthanasia shall be required to administer It. Hence, legalizing euthanasia not only ensures protecting the rights of the patient, but the rights of the physician as well. A person may be searching for a good death, but terminally Ill tenants merely wish to have a painless, merciful death at the time of their own choosing. Surely that is not asking much. People who are making the decisions have patients want is to die, peacefully, with dignity, and no pain.
Withdrawing life- sustaining treatment from a suffering and terminally ill patient is usually more easily justified that killing such a person. This appears to be accepted by the majority of the medical profession, and is presently reflective in NEWS laws. The following laws prohibit the killing of a terminally ill and suffering patient often referred to as active euthanasia. However, they sometimes permit withdrawing life-sustaining treatment also referred to as passive euthanasia. There are two ways of arguing that passive euthanasia can be Justified and active euthanasia cannot.
The first lays on the philosophy that killing someone is morally worse than letting them die. For example, a doctor who kills a patient directly causes the death, however a doctor who withdraws treatment only allows that death. The doctor is differently responsible for the two deaths, and this Justifies viewing the methods differently. In my point of view, here is not any real moral significance between the two. Choosing not to act is itself an action, and we should be equally responsible for it. Indeed, there is no morally significant difference; active euthanasia may sometimes be preferable.
The second way of arguing that active euthanasia can never be Justified involves acknowledging the following point; legalizing active euthanasia would undermine our belief in the sanctity of human life, and start a “slippery slope” that would end with a Nazi-like policy of ‘euthanasia anyone seen as a burden on society. Therefore, it is important o carefully consider possible negative consequences of Justifying active euthanasia, and the respect for personal autonomy that it displays is sufficient Justification for such a program.
As mentioned above, passive euthanasia refers to withdrawing treatment that might have delayed the death of a terminally ill patient. Active euthanasia, whereas, states to intentionally bringing about the death of such a patient by ordering a lethal drug or a lethal injection, for example. Doctors are often Justified in allowing their patients to die, by withdrawing their treatment, but not in killing them. This difference in attitudes in both types of euthanasia is generally accepted by people in the medical profession.
Wilder Penciled, a neurosurgeon for example, state that “Positive action to take a life is not permitted. But the negative decisions that ease and shorten suffering have always been ours to make. ” Passive euthanasia, which is already an acceptable medical practice in some circumstances seems Justifiable in some situations. For example, practical considerations of limited resources, if nothing else, it seems logical to divert resources from people who have no hope of surviving to those who might. Passive euthanasia prevents us pointlessly wasting resources, and frees them to be reallocated where they can do more good.
However, passive euthanasia is also supported as a means of reducing the suffering of the terminally ill patient because; it expresses respect for individual autonomy. It is hard to see how one could argue that this is never Justified. Active euthanasia advocates seem to believe intuitively, that killing is worse than letting someone die. For example, Catherine Gangrenes was stabbed to death on a New York street while 38 people heard her scream and failed to act. We seem to feel acting to prevent that murder, even when they could have saved the victim by any sort of an action.
In the case of Catherine Gangrenes, we condemn the people who heard her screams and did not act for their cowardice and egocentrics, and their failure to act what was morally right, but we cannot bring murder charges on them, and we do not view their actions as morally equivalent to those of her killer. The doctrine of double effect distinguishes the intended result of an action from any foreseen but undesired consequences it may have. A decision to increase literacy rates for example, is generally a good thing. However, it is accompanied by increased numbers in suicides.
That does not mean that literacy rate should not be increased, and anyone who attempts to do so is, responsible for increasing the number of suicides. Similarly, there is a different between merely foreseeing death off patient, and actually intending the death. Abstaining from continuing with a pointless treatment, to avoid further pain and suffering for the patient has the unfortunate consequence that the patient dies. But the doctor is not held responsible for this. At the same time, not accepting that there is a difference between killing and allowing money to die can lead to very absurd results.
For example, by neglecting to send donations through World Vision, we could be as responsible for the death of those dying of famine as we would be if we had sent them poisoned food. Gay-Williams argues that to refrain from treating a patient, when the treatment cannot reasonably be expected to save his/her life, is not euthanasia at all. The patient is not killed but dies for whatever disease he/she was suffering from. And their death cannot be blamed on the person who does not treat them.
Instead, this sort of decision is a deiced Judgment about the value of continuing a course of treatment that aims to avoid further pain, disgrace and cost for the patient and their family and friends. Therefore, understanding the difference between killing and allowing to die is very much “morally important” because it sets the limits to an agent’s duties and responsibilities to save lives. It can be argued that it would be wrong to hold someone as responsible for what they allowed to happen as for what they made happen. Practically, it is relatively easy to live your life without killing anybody, although, it takes an effort to save lives.
The previous is the basic minimum required of human beings. People who do the latter, however, are often seen as saints. We are generally not as responsible for allowing a death as we are of killing a person. Accordingly, while we may be Justified in withdrawing or withholding treatment from a terminally ill and suffering patient, we can never be Justified in killing them. The above explanation is said to reflect significant moral differences between active and passive euthanasia that makes the latter permissible, and the former prohibited.
Nonetheless, it can also be argued that while we may sometimes intuitively sense a oral difference when offered examples of “killing” and “allowing to die,” this is due to other morally related features. As John Lad states ‘Intuitions are inevitably subjective and unreliable simply because it is impossible to consider it (an act) apart from its context’ We are ‘[l]bible to Jump to conclusions about differences by failing to take into account. ‘ Hence, we can acknowledge that Catherine Genome’s murderer is more morally responsible for her death than other people who failed to help her. Titivation of the murderer and the bystanders are completely different. Likewise, he motivations of the person who fails to save the life of someone dying of starvation would be completely different to those of the person who feed that person poisoned food. These or other differences, account for the differences in our moral Judgments. For example, Phillips Foot suggests that the difference between the two is that they are both contrary to different virtues. The murder of Catherine Geneses, she might say, is against Justice. She had a right to life, and this was brutally violated.
Refraining from assisting her, however, only violates charity. Philosopher James Reaches offers us with a more relevant example that involves two characters, Smith and Jones. Both will gain a large sum of money if their 6-year-old cousin dies. One evening Smith sneaks into the bathroom where the child is having a bath and drowns the boy. Smith then arranges the evidence so that the murder looks like an accident. Jones, the same evening enters the bathroom and sees the boy fall over, hit his head on the side of the bath, slide face-down under the water.
Jones is delighted; he doesn’t rescue the child but stands by the bath, and watches as the child drowns. He loud have quite happily drowned him, but did not have the need to do it. If we can see Jones and Smith’s actions as equally morally wrong, then, Earache’s argues, that we should likewise see no moral difference between the actions of a doctor performing active euthanasia and a doctor performing passive euthanasia. Reaches’ intellectual experiment shows that the presence of moral responsibility is not absolutely dependent on a person causing the death of another directly through his actions in the physical sense.
In other words, if a person’s active deed is the cause of another arson’s death (and that deed is performed deliberately, with insight into its likely consequences), the agent will always have a moral responsibility, but conversely it cannot be inferred that a person who does not cause the death of another through his or her active deed never has a moral responsibility for that person’s death. I personally, do not believe there is a morally significant difference between the two cases. Only the means by which they cause their patient’s death is different, and both should be seen as guilty of murder.
In this example the doctor is Just as blameworthy or an omission as for an act. As B??chamel argues “Killing is sometimes right, sometimes wrong, depending on the circumstances, as the same is true of letting die. It is the Justifying reasons which make the difference to whether an action is right, not merely the kind of action it is. ” According to the doctrine of acts and omissions, Smith is morally guiltier than Jones, since he actively killed the child, while Jones Just allowed the boy to die. In law Smith is guilty of murder and Jones isn’t guilty of anything.
However, most people would regard any distinction between their moral lilt as splitting hairs. Where doctors believe they are acting in their patient’s best interest, the end result is the same; the death of the patient. I do not believe the methods used make any difference to the morality of euthanasia. This seems to be compatible with our intuitions in the case outlined above. A doctor who discontinues a course of treatment because it is not believed to be in a patient’s best interests, and foresees that the patient will die because of this, does not intent for the patient’s death.
Yet has made an informed decision for what is the better course of action. The doctor ho knows this, and nevertheless ceases treatment has hastened the death of the patient Just as much as the doctor administering lethal injection. It is irrational to separate the decision to stop treatment from the realization that a patient will die when it is ceased. Frequently unwelcome consequences prevent us doing something we want to do, and we are unable to avoid responsibility for these by saying we wanted only the positive outcome. Why then, should we accept such excuses in the euthanasia debate, when we do not elsewhere?
This distinction is not only irrelevant, but it can also lead to terrible results. Dieing can be an incredibly painful process. A lethal injection, however, is less painful. Supposedly, a terminally ill patient decides they do not want to continue to suffer, and a doctor agrees to assist the patient terminate his/her life, surely consistency demands that the least painful form of euthanasia, intended to reduce suffering, is used. Finally, Reaches argues that accepting that there is a trivial difference between active and passive euthanasia will result in decisions about life and death being made on irrelevant grounds.
For example, two Downs syndrome babies are born, one with an obstructed intestine, and the other perfectly healthy in all other respects. In many cases, babies born in such condition are refused the simple operation that could cure them, and die. It does not seem right that an easily curable disease should determine whether the baby lives or dies. If a Downs syndrome baby’s life is Judged to be not worth living, then both babies should die. If not, they should both be given medical treatment sufficient to ensure their survival.
Accepting a distinction between active and passive euthanasia results in unacceptable inconsistencies in our treatment of such babies, and it should thus be abolished. Some philosophers who accept the arguments outlined above believe that this distinction, however misleading, should be maintained in public policy and law. They believe that, if we permit active euthanasia, this would undermine our belief in the sanctity of human life. Hence, it would begin our slide down a “slippery slope” that would end us with ‘euthanasia anyone seen as a burden to the society, as happened in Nazi Germany.
If we look at this argument logically, it seems difficult to see how permitting voluntary active euthanasia in respect for individual autonomy, could change attitudes to killing hat do not demonstrate these qualities. If we examine what really happened in Nazi Germany, the facts do not seem to support this sensational claim. As B??chamel argues, if the principles we use to Justify are Just, then any further action inspired by these principles must also be Just. An authoritarian system and racial prejudice were more responsible for holocaust than any acceptance of euthanasia.
In any event, we qualify our moral prohibitions of killing by allowing the exceptions of self- defense and war. The question that arises here is why not accept euthanasia as another exception? B??chamel replies to this by saying that the difference with euthanasia is that it entails making the Judgment that a life can be not worth living, whereas the others only Justify retaliating against a morally blameworthy aggressor. In any event, if there is no moral difference between passive and active euthanasia, views incorporating this distinction must be wrong.
Rather than maintaining such accurately and consistently reflects our attitudes. In Australia, active voluntary euthanasia, assisted suicide and physician assisted euthanasia are all illegal. Across all Australian states and territories, any deliberate CT that results in a death of another person is defined as murder. Euthanasia and assisted suicide is prohibited in the criminal legislation of each Australian state, as well as the common law in the common law states of New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria. The prohibition of euthanasia and assisted suicide has been the status quo for many years.
Although, it was permitted in Northern Territory under the Rights of Terminally Ill Act (1995). The Act came into effect in 1996 making Northern Territory the first place in the world to legally permit active voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Under the Act terminally ill adults who were aged 18 or over, were able to request a physician to help them in dying. This Act was however, short lived, after the Federal Government overturned it in 1997 with the Euthanasia Laws Act (1997). The Euthanasia Laws Act denied states the power to legislate to permit euthanasia or assisted suicide.
Ever since, there have been various attempts across all Australian states to legislate for euthanasia and assisted suicide, but all have failed, because of majority consensus against euthanasia. A number of countries and states around the world have permitted euthanasia and assisted suicide in some Oromo; however this is often under specific conditions. Certainly Justifying active euthanasia, with adequate legislative safeguards, would be better than allowing such actions, presently illegal, to continue behind closed doors.
Furthermore, existing evidence does not seem to show that euthanasia is likely to become the norm anytime soon. The suffering it prevents and the respect for personal autonomy active euthanasia holds should be sufficient Justification for it to be introduced in the society. Since, we have established that both active and passive euthanasia are morally equal, patients should have the right to determine the moment of their death but, only if they are in a situation which is unbearable, and without prospect of improvement.
While permitting active euthanasia might have some unwelcome consequences, I believe that strict legislative safeguards will minimize these, and the suffering it avoids should be Justification enough for its adoption in our society. Also, to help a patient to die without suffering, respecting his/ her philosophical, religious and spiritual choices, is an integral part of the role of the doctor and that to refuse the help requested at any level whatsoever is at best an error but above all a lack of respect for others. In addition, on this matter it is obviously not the numbers that count.