Whether Euthanasia Can Be Justified on the Basis of Individual Autonomy, Virtuous Ethics, and Utilitarianism - Essay Example

Introduction Thesis: Euthanasia can be justified on the basis of individual autonomy, virtuous ethics and utilitarianism. Arguments in favor of euthanasia a) Individual autonomy and euthanasia b) Virtuous ethics and euthanasia c) Utilitarianism and euthanasia Arguments against euthanasia a) Individual autonomy and euthanasia b) Virtue ethics and euthanasia c) Utilitarian and Euthanasia Refutation & Conclusion Euthanasia Introduction Euthanasia means “a good death” (Cavan and Dolan, 2000, p. 7). The word has been derived from the Greek word, “eu” signifying “good” and “thanatos” denotating death. Euthanasia has been classified into four types they are: active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, statutory euthanasia and legitimate medical euthanasia. Active euthanasia refers to the situation where one involves the deliberate killing of the other person. Active again euthanasia stands classified into another three types: the voluntary euthanasia where the euthanasia is conducted with a appeal from the patient- here the medical support are withdrawn with the consent of the patient, the involuntary euthanasia which is also known as “mercy killing”, refers to the taking of the life of the incurable patient without his or her consent in order to relieve him or her from the sufferings and the non-voluntary euthanasia where euthanasia is conducted despite the fact that the patient is not competent enough to give approval. (Mc Dougal, Gorman and Roberts, 2008, p. 2; Mc, Millan, Engelhardt and Spicker, 1987, p.153) This practice of involuntary euthanasia has been declared illegal throughout the United States. It is an acknowledged practice for the animals but in case of human beings it is strictly forbidden. Passive euthanasia refers to the circumstances where the informed patient is allowed to die a “natural death” under the condition where medical aid is withdrawn. The practice of passive euthanasia is legalized across the countries of United States. In some cases the incurably ill patients decides on taking away their life intentionally by taking on active measures with the assistance of their physicians, this is known as statutory euthanasia. Other than Oregon, other states of US have termed this practice as illegal. Legitimate legal euthanasia is based on the principle of “dual-effect” and involves the use of “lethal dosing” or “terminal sedation” (Sanbar, n. d). Euthanasia can be justified on the basis of individual autonomy, virtuous ethics and utilitarianism. Arguments for “Euthanasia” Individual autonomy and euthanasia Euthanasia stands justified on several grounds of morality. The arguments favoring the voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide is justifiable on the ethical grounds of individual sovereignty and the professed responsibility of the health professionals for respecting the patient’s informed preferences. It is justified on the ground of individual autonomy, when one chooses to live the life he or she wants to, the individual should have the authority and the individuality for choosing the kind of death he or she wants to witness. The right to choose his or her death should be respected. The advocates of voluntary euthanasia argue that an adult has every right to refuse any kind of treatment which might involve a life saving one. The concepts of ethical issues have been considered to support the voluntary euthanasia. It is being argued that if an individual have the authority to make informed choices about medical treatment then the right of informed medical assistance to death gets naturally extended to her. (Sanders and Chaloner, 2007, pp. 41-42) Individual autonomy also necessarily stands against slavery, while it can be argued that slavery is not justifiable. The reason for not allowing slavery in a free country is the fact that handing over the control of one’s own life is the most unwise things to do, hence man take all the decision in his life by his own. Similarly while deciding on whether to die or not man himself has every right and authority to take the decision. (Singer, 2003, p. 528) Considering the case of Dianne Pretty the resident of England, who was denied assistance to death, one comes to know of the 42 year old woman who was suffering from motor neuron diseases and leading a life of suffering and pain. To get rid of the anguished life she was leading, the lady wanted to end her life. She had led a life of dignity and wanted a dignified death as well. To save her husband from the legal consequences she appealed to the court to grant her petition of euthanasia. But it was refused and she died the death she had exactly tried to avoid, as the illness took over its course. It totally remains unethical and inhuman to take away the liberty of taking decision from an individual about her life or death. (Verkaik, 2002) Virtuous ethics and euthanasia On the ethical grounds, virtue ethics states that stealing, killing or lying are not immoral as because that have been claimed to be wrong in some general principles. Hence according to the virtue ethics an individual can be regarded as virtuous if and only if he or she epitomizes the virtue or the excellence of his character in all roles under any circumstances over the life span. When talking about the justified role of a doctor in providing euthanasia with the consent of the patient, the virtue of the doctor is understood as he is moved by compassion seeing the severe pain that the patient is presently undergoing. As a doctor he even gets to know that the conditions cannot be improved, on the contrary he knows the condition will get worsened. Virtual ethics distinguishes between virtue from “inside out” and virtue from “outside in”. Hence when the doctor’s action is ruled by his compassion he actually acts according to his inside virtue. Listening to ones one self and having the courage to let the inside virtue rule over one’s own action is an integral part of virtual ethics. Taking the example of Dr. Cox who provides the patient with euthanasia, it is justified from his part as being the doctor he knew that the probability of recovery is not there and the patient had reached such a stage where she cannot even absorb the medicine given to her. Under such circumstances the doctor understood the unbearable condition the patient is going through and knowing the fact that the particular day could be the last day of the patients’ life, drawn by compassion he assisted his patient to death. This was the doctor’s one of the many efforts that he made to make life easier and less painful for the patient. He gave his patient a dignified death. A virtue approach totally justifies the action of the doctor as he respond to the inner compassion of his soul and acknowledges it accordingly. (Begley, 2008, pp. 435-440) Utilitarianism and euthanasia Euthanasia can be justified on the act-utilitarian ground and rule-utilitarian ground. There is no doubt of the fact that euthanasia stands criticized on the fact that any sort of killing is bad. But here a distinction has to be made between the assassination and permission for dying. The concept of killing an innocent man achieves its strongest support from the doctrine of religion, where a distinction is made between human beings and sentiment beings. (Singer, 2003, p. 528) Utilitarian argues on the basis of the fact that if the future holds more sorrow and grief than happiness, more frustration and aggravation than being satisfied, then there is always a reason that justifies killing rather than being against killing. While stating the importance of happiness and satisfaction in life one has to remember that it is the human being himself that will determine and decide upon the positive and the negative characteristics of one’s own life. John Stuart Mill argues that human beings are the best adjudicators and protectors of their own interests. Hence whatever decision he or she takes will be in the best judgment for them. Hence while talking about euthanasia one has to keep in mind that human beings are capable of captivating information, reflecting it and choosing the action after it. Human beings are provided with the intellectual capability; hence under the circumstances when the individual can think rationally and are capable of taking their own decisions then the choice of worth living or worth not living must be left overt to them. It has been argued that if the goods that are being offered by life no longer holds good for the individual and the situation is such that the bad outweighs the good in their life, then they have every reason to take the decision of ending their life. It is not that the individual who wants to take the aid of euthanasia is only considered. The impact on their relatives is even devastating and disturbing. Victims often cannot see their relative undergoing the intolerable pain. It has been also argued that in a free society where the human beings are not permitted to give up their freedom, they should not be denied the right to death. (Singer, 2003, pp.528-530) Arguments against “Euthanasia” Individual autonomy and euthanasia The opponents of voluntary euthanasia are of the opinion that assisted dying have a potentially damaging effect on the society as that kills the initiative of taking palliative care services in the society. They believe that it is an escape route for the medical practitioner who instead of inventing the measures which would relieve the patients from the unbearable pain, would choose to give them death. This would take away the initiative of researching further to invent new means to deal with the intense pain. They also argue that the psychological need of the terminally ill patients to get relief from pain should be addressed properly. It has also been argued that non-consensual medical directed killing involves the death of an individual irrespective of fact that whether the killing was conducted taking the consent of the patient or not. They provide an argument of “slippery slope” where they believe that in times ahead involuntary euthanasia will be carried on under the guise of the “voluntary euthanasia.” (Sanders and Chaloner, 2007, pp. 41-42) Virtue ethics and euthanasia But the opponents of the euthanasia brings in the argument that the most important duty of the doctor is to save the life of the patient, and if ethics are concerned then doing one’s own duty with honesty is a major essentials of human life. They also argue that in no way compassion should ever overcome duty. It has also been argued that “doctors are supposed to be relieving pains and not putting patients out of the misery” (Begley, 2008, p.439). The opponents argue by saying that compassion is just a stumble to the duty. They also propose that when one talks about the virtue ethics, it should be also considered that such ethics involve the external rules, codes of conduct and the laws posed and they are the integral part of the virtue. (Begley, 2008, pp. 435-440) Utilitarian and Euthanasia Against the rational thinking and decision making power of the individual it can be also argued that a terminally ill person might be under the stress and he or she will not be able to think or decide rationally. It has been argued by the famous American writer that there are many physicians who are not being able to identify or recognize the clinical depression that the patient undergoes. He is of the opinion that a successful treatment of the clinical depression would erase the desire of death from the patients’ mind. Hence the need is for a psychological treatment as well where the patient asking for euthanasia can be treated by the psychiatrists. The opponents also argue that the circumstances have to be inspected and investigated properly so that real suffering is identified. It is not important to know whether the matter is psychological or physical, but the more important aspect is to recognize how the pain can be relieved so that others are not frightened of being killed when they still have an aspiration to die. (Singer, 2003, pp.528-530) Refutation and Conclusion Euthanasia till date remains the most sensitive, emotive and controversial issue. A balanced approach is required to understand the situation that arises demanding the need of euthanasia. The opponents of the euthanasia argue on the basis of the “slippery slope” (Levis, 2007, p. 198) and the supposed medical inventions that are being limited by the wide practice of euthanasia. But it cannot be denied that every individual should be provided with the autonomy to take the decision of his own life. When they live they lead lives chosen solely by them and nobody has any say about this. In the same way every individual desires and deserves a dignified death. In Ms Dianne Pretty’s (a 43 year old lady of England) case, she could not stand the kind of life she was leading amidst suffering. It was a distressful life for her where her words could only be interpreted as grunts. She desired a dignified death for herself and wanted assistance to die. She was refused the legal authorization for her assisted death and died exactly in the condition she had tried to avoid. None can take the decision of other’s life. If someone cannot endure the pain she is going through it is the person only who understand the true nature of the situation. It can never be denied that one loves himself or herself more than anything else in this world and if he or she has taken the decision of ending the most beloved possession then it is really his or her need. While the opponents of euthanasia talk about the duty over compassion, it has to be mentioned that the most important duty of any human being is to help the other and try to relieve them from their sufferings and pains. Man should not be so bounded by the chains of professional duty that it encroaches upon his duty as a human being. Hence, euthanasia stands justified on ethical grounds. References: 1. Cavan, S and S, Dolan, (2000), “Euthanasia: the debate over the right to die”, The Rosen Publishing Group. 2. Sanbar, S, (n. d), “Classification of Euthansia”, available at: http://www.ablminc.org/Editorial_Classification_of_Euthanasia_SSS_06.pdf (accessed on June 21, 2011) 3. McMillan, R, Engelhardt, H, Spicker, S, (1987), “Euthanasia and the new born: conflicts regarding saving lives”, Springer. 4. McDougal, J, Gorman, M and C Roberts, (2008), “Euthanasia: a reference handbook”, ABC-CLIO. 5. Sanders K and Chaloner C, (2007), “Voluntary euthanasia: ethical concepts and definition”, Nursing standards, vol. 21, no, 35, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=719374ec-d466-41f9-9434-8bef4d340646%40sessionmgr13&vid=1&hid=25 (accessed on June 21, 2011) 6. Begley, A, (2008), “Guilty but good: defending voluntary active euthanasia from a virtue perspective”, Nursing ethics, Vol. 15, No. 4, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=3858cd53-f10b-47a1-9c95-f6978347ff26%40sessionmgr14&vid=1&hid=25 (accessed on June 21, 2011) 7. Singer, P, (2003), “Voluntary euthanasia: a utilitarian perspective”, Vol. 17, No. 5-6, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=622c2538-8c14-483f-8a5f-ccac5439dc22%40sessionmgr104&vid=1&hid=106 (accessed on June 21, 2011) 8. Verkaik, R, (2002), “Dianne Pretty loses case, while Miss B’ dies with dignity”, The independent crime, available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/diane-pretty-loses-case-while-miss-b-dies-with-dignity-658602.html (accessed on June 21, 2011) 9. Lewis, p, (2007), “The empirical slippery slope from voluntary to non voluntary euthanasia”, Spring, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=0aed1190-2ee7-4735-9d22-c5a7d8baa48f%40sessionmgr112&vid=1&hid=111 (accessed on June 21, 2011) Read More