Euthanasia and assisted suicide
Author
Institution
Introduction
Matters pertaining to life and death have always been controversial in many countries. This is especially considering the differing opinions on when it starts and ends, as well as who should have the final say on when it ends. Controversy has particularly been with regard to euthanasia and mercy killing. Euthanasia refers to the act of ending the life of an individual who is suffering from a terminal (and usually painful) ailment in order to bring their suffering to an end. As much as euthanasia is, more often than not, an act of mercy, it is usually considered an act of crime and would be charged as criminally negligent homicide, manslaughter or second-degree murder. However, euthanasia comes in varied forms including active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, and involuntary euthanasia. Active euthanasia, more often than not, involves a facilitator (usually a physician) providing a means and method of ending one’s life, as well as putting the process of ending life in motion (Biggs, 2000). This may be considered as voluntary euthanasia in instances where the victim’s consent has been obtained. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, involves allowing an individual who is terminally ill to die through removing all assistance that would keep him alive, for example removing respirators or feeding tubes (Biggs, 2000). Involuntary euthanasia involves ending the life of an individual who has not given his consent to the process, or an individual who is sufficiently competent.
In California, euthanasia is considered a criminal act. Also referred to as “Mercy Killing” or “Assisted Suicide”, active euthanasia is specifically prohibited. The California Penal Code Section 401, which is titled “Advising or Encouraging Suicide”, states that an individual who intentionally advices, encourages, or assists another person to end his own life would be guilty of a felony (McDougall et al, 2008). Assistance, in this case, would entail the provision of anything that would be necessary or useful in the attainment of an end, for example, the provision of a weapon to an individual while knowing full well that the individual will attempt or even commit suicide. California voters, in 1992, brought down a ballot whose passing would have legalized doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia (McDougall et al, 2008).
Varied ethical issues arise from mercy killing and euthanasia. First, there is the issue of personal autonomy. This is especially in instances where an individual is not sufficiently competent as to make a decision on whether his or her life should be ended. This was the case for the Lawrence Latimer case in 1993, where Mr. Latimer had ended the life of his 12 year old daughter who was suffering from varied painful ailments and was about to undergo an even more painful surgery without the option of taking powerful palliatives. It could be argued that the individual should have the say on whether he or she wants his life ended, in which case euthanasia would have amounted to the violation of her autonomy as an individual. In addition, there are ethical issues pertaining to protection of the vulnerable individuals in the society especially the disabled (McDougall et al, 2008). This came out clearly in the Latimer’s case especially considering that the daughter had been disabled since birth to the extent that even though she was 12 years old, her mental aptitude was that of a three year old. Many would see her mercy killing as increasing the risk for the disabled who cannot fight for themselves. Other issues revolve around the redefinition of physician’s role in dying and death especially considering that they are charged with the responsibility of preserving life and assisting individuals to retain, attain and regain their quality of life (Biggs, 2000). Other issues revolve around compassion and ending an individual’s suffering, especially with regard to whether there should be legal limits to them. On the same note, there is the ethical issue pertaining to personhood, where there is the question on whether an individual who has become severely incapacitated would qualify as human or as a non-person. Bioethicists are of the opinion that individuals who have become cognitively impaired should be regarded as non-persons, in which case they would not be entitled to legal and ethical rights and protections. This raises the question on whether the quality of life determines whether an individual is human or it is merely an issue to do with being alive.
Out of these ethical issues crop varied arguments in support, as well as against euthanasia and mercy killing. One of the key arguments for euthanasia revolves around individual autonomy and right to make decisions pertaining to the time, as well as the manner in which he or she should die (Torr, 2000). This concept is based on the notion that an individual should have the autonomy and self-determinism capacity to make decisions pertaining to his life provided that the decision does not have destructive effects on other people. This also stems from the rights of an individual, where proponents of euthanasia state that the right to life goes beyond mere existence. The right stretches to being able to make decisions for a dignified exit.
In addition, proponents of euthanasia quote beneficence where they state that relieving individuals of their agony and pain through euthanasia would be more beneficial than harmful to the individual. This stems from the belief that the notion that death is welcome beyond the point where the body cannot take any more pain (Manning, 1998). They state that the basic moral values of any society, mercy and compassion require that the society does not allow any patient to undergo unbearable suffering. This is also tied to the notion that life does not amount to mere existence but to having a certain level of quality of life (Manning, 1998). In this regard, individuals who are experiencing a certain level of pain or agony should be considered non-persons. It is often assumed that they would have made the same decision had they been given the capacity to choose between death and unbearable pain from which they suffer.
Nevertheless, there are varied arguments against euthanasia or mercy killing. One of the key arguments revolves around the sanctity of life irrespective of its quality (Biggs, 2000). This may be based on religious or secular beliefs, with the underlying ethos being that it is imperative that human life is preserved and respected irrespective of its quality. Religions such as Christianity and Islam see life as God-given, in which case He should be the only one who has the capacity to take it, as well (Torr, 2000). However, it is worth noting that these religions would allow passive euthanasia based on the notion that withdrawal or withholding treatment in instances where such treatment would be futile should be permitted. In such instances, the ailment from which an individual is suffering would be seen as the cause of the death rather than the action of the physician (Biggs, 2000).
In addition, euthanasia is seen as murder as it underlines an action whose key intention is ending the life of another individual, which is inherently wrong regardless of the consent of the patient. On the same note, euthanasia is seen as abuse of the independence, as well as human rights of an individual (Torr, 2000). As much as proponents of euthanasia may use personal autonomy to advocate for euthanasia, opponents of the same argue that the requests of the patient at such times are never autonomous especially considering that a large number of terminally ill patients are not of rational or sound mind.
In addition, there is objection to euthanasia based on the role played by palliative care. Opponents of euthanasia feel that there is no suffering or pain that cannot be relieved through the administration of the appropriate pain-killing care (Manning, 1998). In any case, technology is dynamic in which case most of the ailments that seem terminal or that come with unbearable suffering may be curable as new inventions of medications and technologies are made every day. Scholars note that on extremely rare occasions are requests for euthanasia sustained once appropriate care has been established.
In addition, euthanasia is seen as detrimental to the rights of powerless or vulnerable individuals. There are fears that accepting euthanasia would give rise to cases where the rights of such individuals would be undermined. This may include the coercion of such individuals especially in instances where their treatment is seen as to costly. On the same note, it raises questions pertaining to the physicians’ role, as well as the relationship between doctors and patients (Manning, 1998). Opponents note that physician-assisted suicide or active voluntary euthanasia undermines the relationship between patients and physicians thereby destroying the confidence and trust that is built in the relationship. This is especially considering the fact that physicians are charged with the responsibility of assisting and saving lives rather than ending them. In essence, the medical profession’s objectives would be compromised and undermined if doctors were to be given the role of carrying out mercy killing or euthanasia (McDougall et al, 2008).
In conclusion, euthanasia or mercy killing has been one of the most contentious issues in the contemporary society. Most societies see it as a criminal act or felony especially considering the sanctity of human life. Nevertheless, passive euthanasia is usually allowed as such a death is seen as having resulted from the ailment (natural cause) rather than the actions of an individual. Various ethical issues crop out from euthanasia including protection of individuals seen as vulnerable in the society, encouraging good palliative care, personal autonomy, ending suffering, as well as the redefined role of doctors in dying and death. Various arguments have been put forwards in support of euthanasia especially with regard to personal autonomy and beneficence or ending the life of an individual in order to end his unbearable suffering. Nevertheless, other people feel that euthanasia would put vulnerable individuals at risk, and refute the use of autonomy argument to support calls for euthanasia. They opine that individuals in such a state do not have the capacity to undertake rational thinking. In addition, they feel that allows euthanasia undermines the key objective of the medical profession, which is to preserve and protect life.
References
Biggs, H. (2000). Euthanasia, death with dignity and the law. Oxford: Hart.
Torr, J. D. (2000). Euthanasia: Opposing viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press.
Manning, M. (1998). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: Killing or caring?. New York, NY: Paulist Press.
McDougall, J. F., Gorman, M., & Roberts, C. S. (2008). Euthanasia: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.
