Moral Justifications of Lord Joffes Bill - Essay Example

? Lord Joffe’s Bill: Moral and legal justifications for change in law in relation to the right to die Introduction The right to live is a natural right everywhere whereas the right to die is a controversial topic all over the world. “Many faith groups within Christian, Muslim, Jewish and other religions believe that God gives life and therefore only God should take it away”1. In fact no culture or religion believes that the right to die is a fundamental right. For them, life is created in this world by God and only He has the right to take it back. At the same time, there are plenty of social organizations which argue for making the right to die as a fundamental right to everyone. These organizations believe that a person is fully authorised to make decisions about the sustainment of his life in this world and nobody has any right to prevent him from doing so. In their opinion, right to live and right die are fundamental rights which are equally important. Public opinion about the right to die has been changed a lot in recent past. Today, even some of the religious groups are favouring right to die on certain occasions. This is because of the increasing cases of people falling in no hope conditions. It should be noted that plenty of people all over the world are currently sustaining their life with the help of medical equipment and the hope for survival is almost nil for them. Under such circumstances, the debate over the right to die is getting intensified in recent times. Australia is the first country which legalized the right to die. Countries like Netherlands and Canada also did the same thing later. In some states of America, right to die is made legal. However, UK is one country in which the right to die has not been approved legally yet. Lord Joffe proposed a bill in the House of Lords in 2006, to make physician-assisted suicide (PAS) legal in the case of people who are terminally ill. This bill was a modified version of a previous Bill proposed by Lord Mackay in 2005. “Friday 12May 2006 witnessed the second reading in the House of Lords of Lord Joffe’s Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill”2. However, this bill was failed in the House of Lords because of its inability to gather majority. The bill was defeated by a margin of 148 to 1003. This paper analyses the moral and legal justifications of Lord Joffe’s bill. Moral justifications of Lord Joffe’s bill According to Keown (2007), “If the principled arguments which underpinned the Bill are accepted, the case is made not simply for PAS, but for active euthanasia, voluntary and non-voluntary”4. Physician assisted suicide and euthanasia are entirely different things. Physician assisted suicide (PAS) or mercy killing is more acceptable to the public than euthanasia. PAS is nothing but helping a person in terminating his life whereas “Euthanasia is the intentional termination of life by somebody other than the person concerned at his or her request”5. In short, euthanasia is nothing but another form of killing even if it is performed with the consent of the victim. Moral laws cannot justify killing of a human being under any circumstances. Even after huge developments in science and technology, nobody knows the secrets behind life and death. Even though medical science advanced a lot, no healthcare professional was able to produce an artificial life in a laboratory condition. In other words, only the creator knows the secrets behind life. Once it is taken, nobody can return a life. Under these circumstances, the authority or the right of a person to take the life of another person may not be acceptable to anyone. It is better to leave the destiny of the person in trouble to the creator rather than attempting to help him by killing him. According to the Jewish perspectives on euthanasia; “There is a time to be born and a time to die”' (Ecclesiastes 3:2a)6. In other words, PAS and euthanasia are immoral according to the beliefs of Jews. Now, the question is whether the death of a person is personal or not. “In an entirely secular, entirely individualistic society, the answer must be yes. In a religious society or one with a strong sense of communal values, the answer must be no”7. Man is a social animal who is connected to many other entities in this world. A person could be father, son, husband and friend to different people in the society. A father has definitely some obligations to his children and a husband definitely has some obligations to his wife. Same way, a son has some commitments towards his parents. In other words, even if one’s life is personal, he is connected with so many entities in this world and hence it is difficult to consider a life of a person as personal property. Finlay (2006) pointed out that not only the Bishops and Archbishops, a majority of members in the House of Lords showed their opposition against this Bill8. In other words, this bill failed to gather support not only among religious leaders but also among people of other segments and communities. Supporters of this bill argued that this bill should be passed since a lot of secret euthanasia is already occurring in UK. Illegal performance of an act and legal performance of an act are entirely different things. It should be noted that different opinions are there in every society with respect to any matters which affect the people. For example, plenty of arguments are there for and against same sex marriage or staying together like modern life styles. Since these life styles are illegal in many countries, people engage in such life styles secretly in different parts of the world. “Most of the cases in the public eye have concerned people with terminal illnesses, but it is apparent that some physically well people consider their lives to be unbearable and decide to end them”9. Now the question is whether rational suicide is acceptable or not. It should be noted that PAS is acceptable to many people only because of the sympathy they have towards the people in no hope conditions. At the same time, nobody will show same sympathy towards healthy people who decide to commit suicide. Nobody has the right to put an end to their life which is given to them by some unknown forces. In other words, rational suicide cannot be justified morally, even if PAS can be justified in certain cases. Chetwynd (2004) pointed out that “the right to die only applies if our lives are ours absolutely, and may itself be modified by the suggestion that suicide harms all of us by devaluing human life in general”10 Legal justifications of Lord Joffe’s bill The primary objective of every law is the betterment of human life. No laws were so far made for the destruction of human life. It should be noted that chronic diseases are growing day by day and medical science has no clue at all in how to prevent it. If medical science and the government are incapable of offering any solution to chronic diseases, then they do not have the authority to deny the luxury of death to a person suffering from chronic diseases. De Leo et al. (2012) pointed out that the increasing aging population and the high prevalence of chronic illness call for a growing involvement of physicians in assisting people to terminate their life under certain circumstances11. In other words, Lord Joffe can definitely claim legal validity to his bill. In 1992, Eluana Englaro was involved in a car accident in Italy that eventually left her in a permanent vegetative state requiring artificial nutrition and hydration. For many years, Mr Englaro, Eluana's father, would litigate to enforce what he considered to be his daughter's wish to discontinue life-prolonging treatment. In July 2008, the Court of Appeal of Milan has given its authorization for artificial life support to be withdrawn12 (Luchetti, 2010, p.333). Even though many people criticized the judgement of Milan court, it should be noted that all the oppositions were based on moral grounds rather than legal grounds. Italy is a country which is dominated by Roman Catholics and the influence of Pope on Italian social life cannot be neglected. Even then, Italian courts showed the courage to give verdicts in favour of PAS. If Italy can allow PAS or euthanasia, then Britain cannot stay away longer periods from legalising PAS. “Supporters of legalized euthanasia use "dignity" to express their position that some deaths might indeed be accelerated”13. Life is important to all; same way death is also important to all people. In a democratic society, the right to die should be made legal according to the views of many sociologists. “Since the 1970s, a right-to-die movement that shares the social work commitment to self-determination has grown and influences end-of-life care decisions”14. In their opinion, death is only a personal matter and therefore the right to die should be permitted. They argue that accepting death with pride is a moral right for everyone. Nobody wants to die in an undignified manner. People want to keep the same dignity they kept in their life, in their death also. Moreover, the ultimate sufferer of pain, agony and discomfort of living in a no hope condition will be the person himself. Others can show sympathy towards him; however, they cannot share the pain and agony of the victim. Under such circumstances, many people believe that the right to die should be made legal. “Euthanasia advocates claim it and associate it directly to the right to life”15. Life and death are two of the most confusing topics for the scientific world. Many philosophers, religious leaders and sociologists tried to explain life and death in their own views. However, none of the explanations put forward by these people are totally acceptable to the people. Believers may be satisfied by the explanations of religious leaders. However, atheists may not be satisfied with such explanations. Those who are encouraging independent thinking may argue that right to live and right to death are natural rights to human being. According to the views of Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Joffe's bill contains a message that certain kinds of life are not worth living16. Archbishop’s arguments seem to be twisting of facts. If the bishop has concerns with any of the messages of the bill, he could have asked the presenter of this bill to make amendments. Conclusions The right to die and the right to live cannot be equated under any circumstances. All the people come to this world unknowingly and it is evident that some forces are behind the processes of birth and death. Nothing is created from emptiness and all creations require a creator. If that is true, only the creator has the right to put an end or to make modifications on his creations. Even after huge developments in science and technology, we still do not know the secrets of life and death. In other words, the creator is smart enough to hide the secrets of life successfully from the eyes of human. If the creator is superior to creations, it is better to obey the plans of the creations. At the same time, in a modern society like ours, it is necessary to do everything possible to sustain and end human life in a dignified manner. Everybody wants to accept death in a dignified manner. However, since the intentions of the creator are unknown to creations, it is better to accept death naturally. Under such circumstances, Lord Joffe’s Bill favouring PAS cannot be accepted. References 1. Appleyard B. (2009). Assisted suicide: Whose life is it anyway?. The Sunday Times. August 2, 2009. 2. Behuniak, S. M.. Death with "dignity": The wedge that divides the disability rights movement from the right to die movement. Politics & the Life Sciences, Mar2011, Vol. 30 Issue 1, p17-32, 3. Baeke G, Wils JP, Broeckaert B. 2011. 'There is a time to be born and a time to die' (Ecclesiastes 3:2a): Jewish perspectives on euthanasia. Journal Of Religion And Health, 2011 Dec; Vol. 50 (4), pp. 778-95 4. Chetwynd, S. B.2004. Right to Life, right to right and Assisted Suicide. Journal of Applied Philosophy, Aug2004, Vol. 21 Issue 2, p173-182 5. De Leo, D., Hawgood, J. and Ide, N. 2012. Do we need education on right-to-die issues? Medical perspectives from Australia. Asia-Pacific Psychiatry, Mar2012, Vol. 4 Issue 1, p10-19, 6. Delamothe, T. 2009. The assisted dying debate has been hijacked. BMJ: British Medical Journal (Overseas & Retired Doctors Edition), 8/29/2009, Vol. 339 Issue 7718, p484-484 7. Definition of Euthanasia. 2012. [Online] Available at: http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7365 [Accessed 27 April 2012] 8. Finlay, I. 2006. The flip side to ‘assisted dying’ – why the Lords were wise to reject Lord Joffe’s Bill. Clinical Ethics 2006; 1: 118–120 9. Gardoski, K. Right to Life, Right to Death. Journal of Ministry & Theology, Fall2011, Vol. 15 Issue 2, p54-76, 10. Info: Ethical aspects of PAS, N.d. [Online] Available at: http://www.religioustolerance.org/euth7.htm [Accessed 27 April 2012] 11. Keown, J. 2007. Debate Physician-Assisted Suicide: Lord Joffe’s Slippery Bill. Medical Law Review, 15, Spring 2007, pp. 126–135 doi:10.1093/medlaw/fwl020 12. Luchetti M. 2010. Eluana Englaro, chronicle of a death foretold: ethical considerations on the recent right-to-die case in Italy. Journal Of Medical Ethics, 2010 Jun; Vol. 36 (6), pp. 333-5; 13. McCormick, A. J. 2011. Self-Determination, the Right to Die, and Culture: A Literature Review. Social Work, Apr2011, Vol. 56 Issue 2, p119-128, 14. Sullivan, S. 2011. The right to die: a discussion of 'rational suicide'. Mental Health Practice, Mar2011, Vol. 14 Issue 6, p32-34. Read More