An Evolutionary Perspective on Euthanasia - Research Proposal Example

Euthanasia: An Evolutionary Perspective 22 October Study Rationale An evolutionary perspective is currently made of several perspectives that have a common evolution-theory-centered interest in behaviors and traits that all humans possess (Burgess, 2005, p.3). Charles Darwin and modern-day evolutionary scientists see complex designs in organisms as the impact of slow or gradual changes in traits and behaviors across time (Burgess, 2005, p.3). The changes are small and slow enough to happen that they occurred after millions of years for millions of organisms (Burgess, 2005, p.4). Burgess (2005) explained the conditions that enable natural selection: 1) Genetic variation must be present to propel evolution, where the root is “random mutation” that pertains to the DNA making copying errors during cell division; 2) Nonrandom selection of genetic changes happen because of the adaptive needs of surviving in the environment; and 3) Organisms have mechanisms that pass these changes from one generation to the next through a “self-copying DNA molecule” (p.5). Hence, the basic foundation of evolution is genetic diversity. Euthanasia can be studied from an evolutionary perspective, in that it can either support or oppose it, depending on whose thinking and principles are involved (Stewart-Williams, 2010, p.269). The evolutionary perspective can provide justifications for it, or rejection of its fundamental proponents’ assumptions and arguments (Persaud, 2007, p.340). When searching keywords in “euthanasia,” “evolution*,” and “anthropology,” in EBSCO database and Google, however, it becomes apparent that not many studies focus on examining euthanasia from an evolutionary perspective. Most studies that came up are focused on eugenics and its practices, which are related to the evolutionary perspective, such as Persaud’s (2007) analysis and the works of Benedict, Shields, and ODonnell (2009) and Berghs, Casterlé, and Gastmans, (2007) on euthanasia programs during Nazi Germany times. The narrowness of these results indicates a gap in literature regarding a synthesis of studies on euthanasia and how evolutionary theories support or oppose it. Aside from the determined gap in literature, the study on euthanasia from an evolutionary perspective has personal roots. The writer of the paper has heard of friends and distant family members, whose elderly or very sick relatives called for euthanasia. None of them admitted, however, of approving such requests, because they thought that euthanasia is inhumane and against their personal and religious beliefs. They did not think that it was right to take another person’s life, no matter how much that person wanted it. They assert that life is sacred and that even suffering is not enough reason to support euthanasia. The writer wants to further understand the evolution of these beliefs using relevant articles, especially tracing back euthanasia practices in ancient times. Thus, the main rationale of conducting the study is to respond to the literature gap and to further study a personal concern regarding the evolution of beliefs in and practices of euthanasia. Preliminary Review of Literature Euthanasia generally refers to the taking of someone’s life after the express request of the latter, with the main purpose of ending suffering and pain. Today, there are two kinds of euthanasia, which has its variations: active and passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia refers to removing the life support of a person, and allowing nature to take its course for the dying patient. Some examples are removing respirators or stopping medicine provision. Active euthanasia, on the contrary, consists of direct action, usually through a doctor. Several examples are administering lethal injection or giving medicine that can hasten death. Some forms of active euthanasia may involve relatives of the patient who approve of euthanasia because the latter is no longer conscious for a long time and may have no hope of being awake again. Active euthanasia may then defy the fundamental assumption that euthanasia is specifically requested by the person. Evolutionary perspective can provide either support or opposition to euthanasia, but it is most commonly connected to supporting it. Eugenics is an offshoot of evolutionary perspective because it asserts the importance of improving the human stock, or human race, through systematically choosing certain superior races and eliminating inferior races or those with inferior traits (Bergs et al., 2007, p.845). Nazi Germany conducted active euthanasia programs from 1939 to 1945, wherein it involved patients who did not even want to die in the first place (a form of active euthanasia). Persaud (2007) presented a scathing criticism of eugenics and euthanasia in Evolution: beyond the Realm of Real Science. He asserted that eugenics influenced Adolf Hitler’s racist ideology and euthanasia programs in Nazi Germany (Persaud, 2007, p.340). Persaud (2007) explained that the evolutionary perspective shaped eugenics because the latter showed a connection between the need for actively promoting adaptation to the environment through the preservation of superior races or superior genes and the elimination of weaker ones (p.340). Berghs et al. (2007) and Benedict et al. (2009) studied euthanasia practices in Nazi Germany, where the former focused on nurses’ responsibility, while the latter included nurses and the general context of killing children with disabilities. Berghs et al. (2007) learned from their study that nurses had different reasons on why they followed euthanasia orders. Some of them said that they were forced, others noted that they followed higher orders only, while several said that they had no other choice because it was the only employment available to them (Bergs et al., 2007, pp.847-848). Some nurses, nevertheless, took the ethics of care by heart and resisted complying with euthanasia orders by pursuing several actions such as starting a family or moving to a new community or job (Bergs et al., 2007, p.850). Evolutionary thinking, nevertheless, justified some of the nurses’ euthanasia thoughts because of the thinking and feeling that they did the more moral thing for people under misery or pain, and for the further cleansing of the Aryan race (Bergs et al., 2007, p.849). Benedict et al. (2009) noted that the active participation of nurses too in the killing of children with disabilities and those who were not of Aryan descent followed the principles of eugenics. Euthanasia followed eugenics principles that aimed to preserve the Aryan race and to erase inferior traits and races, through the promotion of “racial hygiene” (Benedict et al., 2009, p.507). The practice of killing children who have disabilities or who are not Germanic was deemed as part of the racial hygiene needs of the nation. These studies did not discuss the connection between euthanasia and the evolutionary perspective directly or completely, however. On the contrary, eugenics can also be seen in another light, in that it only means to preserve strong traits among organisms, though it is inhumane when applied to human beings. For instance, farmers already practice eugenics when they butcher cows that are not good sources of milk and sows that do not produce strong litter of pigs. In humans, such a practice is considered abhorrent, even when considering genetically modifying genes of the unborn. Only Persaud (2007) noted, among the sources read, that evolutionary perspective may not condone euthanasia because of the direct involvement in death, instead of letting it happen naturally (p.269). If people have to improve their stock, it must be through adapting to their circumstances, instead of gassing them up in gas chambers. Pounder, Prokopec, and Pretty (1983) had a different thinking in “A Probable Case of Euthanasia Amongst Prehistoric Aborigines at Roonka, South Australia.” They suggested that women who had problems at childbirth and who might not survive their wounds were killed by hitting them in the head. Mercy killing seemed applicable to stop the pain and misery of the women. Eugenics may not be apparent in the article, however. These articles indicate the need to perform further study on euthanasia’s evolutionary perspective. Working Plan The working plan for the paper involves further research, evaluating sources, collecting data, analyzing data, and presenting findings and conclusions. The research design is secondary research with synthesis of existing studies. The work plan is below: 1) Activity: Research and collection of data in the library and using databases; Time: Last week of October; Output: Annotated bibliography of 10 to 20 sources 2) Activity: Evaluation of sources; Time: First week of November; Output: Expanded Annotated bibliography of 10 sources. Bibliography will include main arguments, sampling, findings, implications, conclusions, and strengths/weaknesses of studies. 3) Activity: First draft writing, analysis of sources, and finding connections between them, as well determining gaps and direction for future research ; Time: Second week of November; Output: First draft 5 pages 4) Activity: Second draft writing, analysis, synthesis of sources, and finding other sources if needed and including them into the writing; Time: Third week of November; Output: Second Draft 5) Activity: Final draft writing, asking feedback from professor and classmates, editing, and proofreading; Time: Fourth to fifth week of November; Output: Final Draft The working plan is open to changes and there is consideration for changes in certain aspects of the paper, although it will already focus on the evolutionary perspective on euthanasia. Collection of important data is critical at this point, especially since there are few sources that study euthanasia from an evolutionary perspective. References Benedict, S., Shields, L., & ODonnell, A.J. (2009). Childrens “Euthanasia” in Nazi Germany. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 24(6), 506-516. Berghs, M., Casterlé, D.D., & Gastmans, C. (2007). Practices of responsibility and nurses during the euthanasia programs of Nazi Germany: A discussion paper. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44(5), 845-854. Burgess, R.L. (2005). Evolutionary theory and human development. In Burgess, R.L. Burgess & K. MacDonald (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on human development (2nd ed.) (pp.1-20). California: SAGE. Persaud, C.H.K. (2007). Evolution: Beyond the realm of real science. USA: Division of Christian Education. Pounder, D.J., Prokopec, M., & Pretty, G.L. (1983). A probable case of euthanasia amongst prehistoric aborigines at Roonka, South Australia. Forensic Science International, 23(2–3), 99-108. Stewart-Williams, S. (2010). Darwin, God and the meaning of life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More