| Read my Dreambook! Sign my Dreambook! |  |
Your mom is sick and in the hospital. She is dying of cancer and has only days to live. The morphine that she is taking to help her with the pain is not helping. She just wants to end the pain that she is feeling. She just wants to die with some dignity. What should we be allowed to do? In this essay I will start off by examining whether or not voluntary, active euthanasia is morally permissible and then secondly I will examine whether or not it should be allowed to be legally practised in Canada.
Before we can set out and accomplish the task of determining whether or not voluntary active euthanasia should be morally permissible and should be practised in Canada we should at least take a moment to learn what the difference is between active and passive euthanasia and what the difference is between voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. Even though this essay will concentrate on active, voluntary euthanasia it is important to know exactly what is meant by the term voluntary active euthanasia.
Types of Euthanasia
Euthanasia is bringing about the death of someone either by act or by omission for that individual�s own good. Active euthanasia is when someone is helped to die by something other than their disease or illness. An example of this would be Dr. Kevorkian giving a lethal injection to a patient who is dying from cancer. Because it was the lethal injection that helped end the life of the suffering patient it is to be considered active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is not exactly what we think about when we think about euthanasia but it is in fact probably the most common form of euthanasia practised in Canada. Passive euthanasia as James Rachels put it � to withhold treatment and allow the patient to die...� (197). In instances of passive euthanasia there are no extraordinary measures taken to keep the patient alive. It is therefore the disease or illness that causes the death of the suffering individual.
What is voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia? These are simple and therefore I shall not go into them with any real depth. Voluntary euthanasia is when the patient who is suffering willingly asks or agrees to the termination of their life knowing that it is in their best interest. Non-voluntary euthanasia is when the patient is unable to give consent because of regrettable circumstances (e.g. comas or mental handicaps). In these cases it would be (usually) loved ones who make the tough decision to end the life of the patient because it would be beneficial to the patient. And now we turn to involuntary euthanasia. This type of euthanasia is where a patient�s life is taken (for the patient�s own well-being) against their will. In these cases euthanasia is unwanted by the patient but thrust upon them by people who believe that they know what is best for the suffering, ill patient.
Against the Morality of Voluntary Active Euthanasia
It is now time to discuss and examine a few arguments for and against the morality of active and voluntary euthanasia. I will start off by examining two arguments against the morality of euthanasia and then three arguments for the morality of euthanasia. Our first argument if that of Gay-Williams.
Gay-Williams feels that active euthanasia is morally wrong. He believes that the idea of euthanasia �is slowly gaining acceptance within our society� (194). To prove his point that euthanasia is wrong, Gay-Williams uses three main arguments to argue against the morality of euthanasia. Only one of these arguments I shall discuss in this essay. The Argument of Nature goes like this (1) �every human being has a natural inclination to continue living� (195). And (2) �euthanasia does violence to this natural goal of survival� (195) therefore active euthanasia goes against our best interests and is also therefore deemed wrong. This is not a bad argument against euthanasia. Basically what Gay-Williams is trying to get at here is that euthanasia is wrong because it is unnatural.
There is however a problem with this argument and the problem is with the first premise. The first premise states that we have a natural inclination to live and even though this may be true it is incomplete. Not only do people have a natural inclination to live they also have a natural inclination to reduce suffering and therefore one may conclude that euthanasia does not go against nature in any way but in fact respects it.
Another problem with this argument is also in the first premise which is also incomplete in another way. It is natural for people to want to live but death is also a part of nature and because euthanasia is typically performed on those who are facing a terminal illness, euthanasia seems to again respect nature and even the individual.
There is yet another problem with Gay-Williams� argument. Both of his premises were empirical while his conclusion was moral. You cannot get moral conclusion from a set of premises that are not moral based. You need at least one moral premise before a moral conclusion may follow. In order to make the conclusion follow the premises, Gay-Williams may have wanted to add another premise like �something that goes against natural inclination is false�. However this premise would also be false because we go against natural inclinations all the time that are not considered false (e.g. sleep).
Another argument against the morality of euthanasia is St. Thomas Aquinas�, God�s Gift argument. In this argument St. Thomas Aquinas tries to persuade people into believing that euthanasia is wrong. The argument says that (1) �life is God�s gift to man...� (185), therefore, (2) �...life is subject to [God�s] power� (185), (3) Active euthanasia is the usurpation of God�s authority, therefore, (4) Euthanasia is wrong because it goes against God. This argument simply stated says that God has given you life and you should be grateful by not wasting it.
This argument has a couple of problems. Premise one said that is debatable. There are those (such as myself) who do not believe in a deity and therefore this argument is very limited in its persuasive appeal. Even though this argument is quite old it is still a common argument used by those who believe in God to argue against the morality of euthanasia. This kind of argument is based only on belief and not on facts and therefore is unable or very unlikely to persuade atheists and other groups.
Another problem with this argument is that premise 2 does not follow the first premise. If premise 2 were in fact true all modern medicine would be immoral. Also if we saw someone choking on a chicken bone we would be unable to interfere. It would be God�s wish that that person die choking on a bone. This is a very hard idea to believe, theist and atheist alike.
For The Morality Of Voluntary Active Euthanasia
We now move from the arguments that argue against the morality of euthanasia to those that believe that there is nothing wrong with active, voluntary euthanasia. I will put forth two arguments that do not seem to be enough to prove that voluntary, active euthanasia should be morally permissible but actually when they are combined, form a very good argument saying that euthanasia is not morally impermissible.
First of all we will start off with the Mercy Argument. This argument says that (1) sometimes patients who are terminally will suffer unneeded and unjust pain, that, (2) if something puts to an end that pain it is morally justified and (3) active euthanasia is sometimes the best way to end needless suffering, therefore, (4) Active Euthanasia is morally justified.
This argument simply says that if a terminally ill patient is suffering and if the only way to ease the suffering is through death then active euthanasia should therefore be considered morally acceptable. Phillipa Foot wrote in her paper concerning euthanasia �...but if suffering sets in one would hope for a speedy end.� (23)
There is however a small problem with this argument that makes it hard for this argument to stand on its own. The problem is with the second premise. Involuntary active euthanasia does end the suffering of the patient but also violates the patient�s rights. Therefore it seems as if there should be more to this argument than there is.
The second of the three arguments that I am going to discuss says that voluntary active euthanasia is morally permissible. This argument is the Autonomy Argument. This argument says that (1) an act is morally permissible if it performed between competent, consenting adults, and if it does not violate any one else�s rights, (2) in some cases active euthanasia is performed by consenting adults and violates no one else�s rights, therefore, (3) active euthanasia is morally permissible. In terms a little easier to understand, this argument says that if competent and consenting adults perform a task without any negative drawbacks to other people�s rights then it must then be morally permissible.
Even though this argument seems very sound it does have a flaw. Premise one is unsatisfactory. If you do believe that the first premise is correct then you must believe that an innocent game of Russian roulette is morally permissible as long as two consenting, competent adults were involved, and it did not violate any other people�s rights. Russian roulette is however considered wrong because it is against one�s own interest. Because of this argument also seems to need more to become a successful argument.
The last two arguments are both weak alone but if we can combine these two arguments into one I believe that we will then have a strong argument. Let us call this argument the Mercy/Autonomy argument. This argument says that (1) an act is morally permissible if it is performed between consenting, competent adults, if it violates no one else�s rights and is in the person�s best interest, (2) in some cases active euthanasia is performed by consenting, competent adults and violates no one else�s rights while also being in the person�s best interest, therefore, (3) Active euthanasia is morally permissible. This argument uses both the Mercy argument and Autonomy argument in its attempt to make a very strong and convincing argument. I believe that it has succeeded. This argument, if you wish to break it down, says that if someone is suffering with a terrible illness and death is in the person�s best interest, then as long as the assisted suicide does not violate anyone else�s rights and the act is done by consenting, competent adults then it should be deemed morally acceptable.
Should Voluntary, Active Euthanasia be Practised in Canada?
Whether or not voluntary, active euthanasia should be performed is a tough question to answer because of all the problems that you are likely to encounter on both sides. You may believe that one should have the right to choose to end their life for their best interest, or not. And this issue is a very debatable subject with people fighting on both sides as best they can. In this part of my essay I will examine why I personally feel that voluntary, active euthanasia should be practised in Canada.
Why I believe that Canadians should have the right to choose their own fate is because we are legally allowed to do many things that harm us, our neighbours, our children, our environment and so on. Adultery is not illegal but I am sure that most would agree that it is immoral. Lying is also not illegal and again I believe that most would believe that lying is immoral. Both have the potential to tear families and friends apart. I have argued that euthanasia is not immoral and because it harms no one I fail to see why things such as adultery and lying are more legally acceptable than ending unneeded suffering.
I know that there are many problems facing the legalization of euthanasia. Many people think that it will be abused and that it will turn us into insensitive people who learn to hate the weak and dying, but there are ways that we can avoid these problems. If for example we determine some safeguards when legalizing euthanasia we can help dodge many uncertainties. Maybe a list of safeguards may include things such as; a 48 hour waiting period, counselling a day before and the day of the assisted suicide to make sure they really want it and maybe make it so that only doctors may perform the task. This list is far from being complete but gives one a basic understanding of what safeguards may do to help avoid the potential problems associated with legalization.
Another way we might want to make euthanasia legal in Canada is to make doctors accountable for their actions. If there are suspicions of abuse we could make the doctors face murder charges. If this is done then that would force doctors to make wise decisions and also force them to leave a paper trail showing exactly why euthanasia was performed. If the doctor cannot come up with the proper defence for his actions then he is liable and should be charged with murder. This would make the doctors more conscious and potentially more trustworthy when euthanasia is performed.
Conclusion
I believe that euthanasia is morally permissible under certain circumstances. I also believe that people should be given the choice to voluntarily ask for some assistance in ending their own lives. I know that if I were dying with a terminal illness or even if I had some sort crippling disease I would at least like to have the right to choose my own fate. I do not see any arguments that prove to me that it should be wrong in a moral and legal standpoint to actively and voluntarily ask for euthanasia.
| Read my Dreambook! Sign my Dreambook! | |