Moral Evaluation on Euthanasia - Essay Example

?Areum Son Mrs. Woodard EH102-QMQ 4/29/13 Final Draft: Moral Evaluation on Euthanasia Over two decades ago in Britain, Dr. Nigel Cox administered a lethal dose of potassium chloride to Lillian Boyes, killing her within minutes. Mrs. Boyes had been was terminally ill, and in the weeks before she died, her pain worsened that even extremely high doses of diamorphine or heroin do little to alleviate her pain. She wanted a voluntary active euthanasia. Even Mrs. Boyes’ two sons supported this. Dr. Cox believes he acted in his patient’s best interests, but he was treated like a common criminal in the courts. By definition, respected dictionaries, internet search engines, and the opinion of several people all agree that euthanasia is “mercy killing” --- an act of intentionally ending one’s life in order to end insurmountable suffering. Dr. Cox did active euthanasia and it is considered a sin and a crime. Passive euthanasia is legal and is done by withholding life-sustaining assistance, while active euthanasia (physician-assisted) involves acts that will hasten someone’s death (Green 641). Although many people think that active euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, is morally wrong and is a total disregard for the sanctity of life, three reasons why physician-assisted suicide is morally right are that it is a respect for the paramount right of an individual to execute sovereignty on matters that concerns only the self, it is the same as passive euthanasia, and it provides dignity in death (Green 640). First, opponents claim that active euthanasia disregards the individual’s right to life. It is claimed that the aim of medicine is always to look for ways to cure an illness, which is rooted in the idea of prolonging a person’s life. It is claimed that there is also a possibility that an ill person may be under pressure to choose euthanasia rather than be a burden to other family members. There is also the possibility of misdiagnosis or miscalculations by doctors, and death can no longer be reversed (Linville 201-2). There is no denying that the logic of these claims have value. However, while people focus on an individual’s right to life, it is forgotten that the individual also has an absolute right over matters that concerns only the person who is involved. This means that to be able to exercise the right to choose life or death is a paramount right for every individual in the event when no intervention or help can be currently applied or given to alleviate the person’s condition. An individual must have the right to decide and choose if the remaining solutions to end the intolerable suffering are merely between miracle and death. Regarding medical misdiagnosis or miscalculations, while it is true that doctors sometimes make mistakes, they are still often correct than wrong. In this matter, the individual is sovereign (Linville 204-5) and that each individual has the right to decide on personal matters. Second, opponents claim that such act goes against the Hippocratic Oath. It is said that doctors are not meant to harm patients, particularly through their profession. Killing them is harming them (Klampfer 7). This claim is understandable. However, there had been so many modifications of the Hippocratic Oath over the years because some of its doctrines are no longer appropriate with the existing society (Klampfer 11). For example, the first paragraph of the oath has been changed because swearing to Greek gods and goddesses may be considered offensive to one’s religion today. Abortion was also prohibited then, but is legal today under certain conditions. The oath also only refers to men, but women today also practice medicine already. Splitting fees with one’s teacher and promising to support their children are also not practiced today (Antoniou et al. 3075-7). Furthermore, such claim puts the legality of passive euthanasia in question. Passive euthanasia, if defined without any refinement, means allowing one to die by not doing anything to save the individual. Yet this action is deemed legal and morally right, probably because since death will occur “naturally,” no one is responsible for killing the person (Davis 846). People just fail to consider the action of inaction in passive euthanasia. In addition, this is perhaps rooted in the moral rule that killing is a sin and a crime, and since passive euthanasia “blames” no one for the person’s death, it is morally right (Davis 846). While passive euthanasia is good, the argument leading to it is bothering. It just means that people do not understand the morality against killing. The idea circles not in preserving every single life, but in protecting the welfare of people to have the right to choose between life and death. Thus, if an individual is able to exercise this right to choose and the intention is not to inflict harm on anyone, then physician-assisted suicide is morally right. Third, opponents claim that active euthanasia will put morality on a downward spiral (Hyde 69). Again, this is perhaps rooted in the fact that there is a law against killing, but not an understanding of the reason for such law. Euthanasia in an act of mercy (Hyde 73), and bestowing mercy is a moral act. On a personal stance, turning the head and the heart away from a suffering person is a cruel act. Not giving the person his or her right to choose regarding matter of personal concern is not morally right either. It is a deprival of a right. Allowing a person to decide to have dignity is death is morally right. This is why despite the differences in cultures and traditions, deaths are dealt with importantly in every society. Dying and suffering individuals’ basic human rights are violated when they are deprived of the ability to decide, which is tantamount to being stripped of dignity. If people have the right to decide on how their remains will be disposed of (Hyde 78), they naturally should have the right to decide to choose between suffering and death. Endings represent closures, finalities, and consummations. They provide an insight regarding the link between the means and the goals. What is morally incorrect is to deprive humans of this chance to end things with dignity if they are insufferably ill because deciding to make people live despite their suffering and against their will is similar to deciding to kill them without valid reason and against their will. Active euthanasia, when the only alternatives left to end the suffering are miracle and death, is a personal right, is as morally correct as passive euthanasia, and bestows dignity in death. It is true that there will always be chances of abuse and misinterpretations (Green 656), but so do half of the choices available for everyone. To legalize it would require long brainstorming sessions, long talks, and so many detailed dissecting of parts. However, these are small things when compared to the enormity of the result in terms of the lives of the people who will be affected. This will not happen if people continue to put active euthanasia in a bad light. Death is always a taboo subject --- grim and gruesome, but this should not prevent people from really evaluating and thinking about things that could make it a little less grim and gruesome. If still not convinced, then maybe it would help to imagine being a witness to the intolerable suffering of a previously active and strong young man, now fully deteriorating, diagnosed with 3 months to live, and in constant insufferable pain that requires strong drugs that would ease the pain, yet render him unconscious for the rest of the day. Every time he is conscious, he sees the tormented look of his mother, his wife, and his only child. He has pleaded many times to have a quick death due to extreme physical, mental, and emotional torture not only to him, but to all those who love him. In the heart and mind, active euthanasia would be the best answer to this. Sadly, some people would not allow it because for them, it is still morally wrong and is a total disregard for the sanctity of life. Works Cited Antoniou, SA, GA Antoniou, FA Granderath, A Mavroforou, AD Giannoukas, and AI Antoniou. "Reflections of the Hippocratic Oath in Modern Medicine." World Journal of Surgery. 34.12 (2010): 3075-9. Print. Davis, A. "Legalising Active Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide. Patients Need Medical Help to Live with Dignity Until They Die Naturally." Bmj (clinical Research Ed.). 324.7341 (2002). Print. Green, K. "Physician-assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: Safeguarding against the "slippery Slope"-the Netherlands Versus the United States." Indiana International & Comparative Law Review. 13.2 (2003): 639-81. Print. Hyde, Michael J. "Defining ‘Human Dignity’ in the Debate Over the (im)morality of Physician-Assisted Suicide." Journal of Medical Humanities. 22.1 (2001): 69-82. Print. Linville, JE. "Physician-assisted Suicide As a Constitutional Right." The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics : a Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 24.3 (1996): 198-206. Print. Klampfer, Friderik. "Suicide, Euthanasia and Human Dignity." Acta Analytica. 16 (2001): 7-34. Print. Read More