Essay on Euthanasia An Overview

Free Euthanasia An Overview papers

Euthanasia
Euthanasia Mark T. Maxwell Abstract This paper will define Euthanasia and assisted suicide. Euthanasia is often confused with and associated with assisted suicide, definitions of the two are required. Two perspectives shall be presented in this paper. The first perspective w

Evil From Morals
Evil From Morals By textbook definition, evil is "What is morally wrong, what hinders the realization of good" (Webster). If that is evil, then what is good? It's "what is morally excellent, virtuous, well behaved, dutiful." (Webster) Philosophers have argued over what evil is and why it e

Euthanasia: An Overview

There has been much debate in recent American society over the legality

and morality of a patients right-to-die. Current legal statue prohibits any

form of euthanasia, however, there are many moral and ethical dilemmas

concerning the controversy. For the purposes of this essay, I will define

euthanasia as the implementation of a decision that a person's life will come to

an end before it need stop. In other words, it is a life ending when it would

otherwise be prolonged. There is an important distinction between voluntary

euthanasia where the decision to terminate life coincides with the individuals

wishes and involuntary euthanasia where the individual concerned does not know

about the decision and has not approved it in advance. I will be dealing

specifically with the concept of voluntary euthanasia, for it seems intuitive

that involuntary euthanasia is not only illegal but also profoundly immoral.

Opponents arguments against euthanasia which fail to substantiate their claims,

many proponents arguments highlighted by the right to autonomy, and empirical

examples of legalized euthanasia all prove the moral legitimacy of physician-

assisted-suicide.

Opponents of euthanasia generally point to three main arguments which I

will mention only for the purposes of refuting them. First, many cite the

Hippocratic oath which reads, "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked,

nor suggest any such counsel" as a reason to oppose euthanasia. Clearly, the

Hippocratic oath does condemn the practice, however, I do not find this as

reason enough to reject the moral permissibility of euthanasia. If the premise

of the oath is flawed (i.e., if it is morally permissible for a physician to

assist in suicide), then a physician should not be prohibited from assisting in

suicide simply because of an oath. Indeed, if it is proven (as will be done

later in this essay) that euthanasia is a moral way to end needless suffering,

then doctors should be obliged to fulfill their patients requests for early

death. The second argument that opponents of euthanasia cite is based on the

Judeo-Christian ethic of human life being the ultimate value of existence. This

argument is vague at best. At the most well-explained level, it says that human

life is intrinsically valuable and should be preserved in every instance

(because human bodily life is the life of a person) thus euthanasia is wrong

because it is killing before life would naturally end. This argument is proven

unsound in two ways. First, I believe that human life is distinct from

personhood. Many patients requesting euthanasia have ceased to be persons

because they are terminally ill and incapable of enjoying the gift of existence.

Thus many of these individuals ( and certainly those in a vegetative state with

a living will that requests euthanasia) are living lives that are not

intrinsically valuable. Second, I disagree with the notion that life is

intrinsically valuable and should be preserved in every instance. I believe

that life is valuable only inasmuch as it is the basis for rational decision-

making. (This argument will be elaborated upon later in the essay). Therefore,

we respect the value of life by respecting a persons autonomy and allowing them

to willingly end their life. The final argument given by opponents of

euthanasia is the notion of a slippery slope in which legalized voluntary

euthanasia will snowball and begin to result in widespread involuntary

euthanasia. The basis for this reasoning is that under a system of voluntary

euthanasia, doctors must make the final determination of whether a person can be

euthanized or not therefore allowing them to decide if a patients life is

"worth" living. Many feel that if doctors can do this to competent people, it

could snowball to incompetent patients and doctors may make decisions to

euthanize without the will of patients. However, I argue that the moral

permissibility of euthanasia depends on a patients voluntary consent. If a

patient does not expressly wish to die, then a doctor who kills a patient

without the consent of that patient would be acting immorally. From a legal

standpoint, the request for euthanasia would have to come first from the patient,

which diminishes the likelihood of involuntary euthanasia occurring. Given

these two scenarios, the idea of a slippery slope is dispelled on both a

theoretical and a pragmatic level. Furthermore, empirical evidence that will

be discussed later disproves the notion of a slippery slope.

In addition to the responses to opponents claims, there are many reasons

why euthanasia is morally acceptable. The justifications for voluntary active

euthanasia rest in four main areas. First, society has a moral obligation to

respect individual autonomy when we can do so without harm to others and when

doing so does not violate some other moral obligation. This is because life is

intrinsically valuable only as a...