The Ethics of Active Euthanasia - Essay Example

An Analysis of the Ethics of Active Euthanasia Euthanasia is a controversial and difficult topic. It is difficult because it involves life and death choices. It is complicated because there are many ethical, medical and legal considerations. There are different types of euthanasia, such as passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. This essay will address active euthanasia. It will begin by defining active euthanasia, discuss the ethical arguments for and against active euthanasia, and present a critical analysis in support of active euthanasia as an ethical and legitimate course of action in certain circumstances. Active euthanasia requires some direct action which leads to death. There is not a withdrawal of life-support systems, but some affirmative action which speeds up or results in a person's death. The important point is that this type of euthanasia is done to a person who would otherwise die of natural causes. In this way, the death is sped up rather than caused. It is also important to note that active euthanasia is not the same as a mercy killing. A mercy killing occurs when the patient is unable to direct another person. In the active euthanasia situation, by contrast, the patient is aware of what is happening and is able to direct the acts of euthanasia. Thus, the patient agrees to this course of action. There are no questions as to the patient's intent. In sum, active euthanasia is the speeding up of a person's death. This person consents to the euthanasia and would, in any event, die of natural causes. There are many arguments in support of this particular type of euthanasia. As an initial matter, both common people and medical professionals argue in large numbers that prolonging a terminal illness causes unnecessary pain and suffering for the patient and for the patient's friends and family. As mentioned, the person is going to die. Why, then, should we as a moral society force these types of patients to suffer extreme physical and emotional pain Would it not be more ethical to relieve them of this pain, and cut short the trauma and the mental torture Another argument in support of active euthanasia is the stress caused to the family of the patient. There is certainly emotional pain; in addition, there may be many financial problems, too. Advanced medical care is expensive and health insurance is not always available or adequate to cover all of the medical expenses. In addition to the arguments dealing with the pain, suffering, and financial burdens associated with prolonging a terminally ill patient, there are also arguments that focus on the dignity of the patient. This is not the same thing as pain and suffering. The dignity refers to a patient's right to decide his own future. It is the patient's body, his illness, and it is presumptuous and authoritarian to take away a patient's right to determine his own treatment and fate. A patient is a free human being, and as such has the right to reject medical advice or to demand the onset of death or the withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatments. This type of argument, however, assumes that the person is rational and not suffering from a mental illness. A final type of argument in support of active euthanasia is concerned more with society than with an individual patient or his family. There is an argument that medical resources are limited, often expensive, and that it would be foolish to waste these resources on patients who are going to die anyway. Why allocate precious resources to a losing situation when they might be better and more effectively used on other patients In sum, there are many arguments in favor of active euthanasia. First, this practice can relieve the patient of pain and suffering. Second , it can relieve his family from emotional pain and possible financial disasters. Third, this is a personal and private decision which should be made by the individual patient. Finally, it is foolish to waste precious medical resources on patients who will not benefit from these resources. It is better, for all of these reasons to allow and perhaps encourage active euthanasia. To be sure, not everyone agrees that active euthanasia is an ethical or moral practice; quite the contrary, many people consider this type of euthanasia to be a terrible crime and deeply immoral. If the patient is granted his wish for active euthanasia, then there are stresses and pressures for the medical profession. Doctors and nurses have difficult jobs. Being forced speed up a patient's death, for example by injecting poison, is requiring them to be the final cause of death. This, the argument contends, violates the medical oath, legal rules against killing, and the religious views of many people. There is nothing more valuable than a human life. The goal should be to preserve and to prolong a patient's life no matter how serious the illness. A further argument is an expression of doubt; more specifically, there are arguments to the effect that we can never be truly and one hundred percent certain that a person will, in fact, die. There are known cases where patients have recovered miraculously, there are new treatments being researched and tested around the world, and the opinions of even the most famous experts are sometimes. incorrect. Finally, there is the larger argument that suggests we are devaluing human life by allowing active euthanasia. We are taking affirmative steps to bring death to a human being. This, the argument suggests, can create a bad precedent. If we kill terminally ill patients today, in order to end pain and suffering, and financial expenses, who is not to say that arguments will be made in the future to apply active euthanasia to patients with autism, mental retardation, or Parkinson's disease In sum, the arguments against the use of active euthanasia depend on the sanctity and the dignity of each and every human life. These arguments also suggest that today's terminal patients may very well become tomorrow's non-terminal patients if this precedent is allowed to be established. In view of the aforementioned arguments, both pro and con, it seems to me that the more persuasive arguments are those in support of the practice of active euthanasia. This does not mean that I am insensitive to the arguments of the other side of the debate, I am, but that I find the pro-arguments more compelling and relevant. First, how can we argue that as a society we are protecting human dignity when we deny the most personal of all choices to an individual I can think of no greater personal choice, not even abortion, and to live in a society based on personal freedom demands a trust be placed in the hands of the individual. It seems rather disingenuous for a social group, whether of a political or religious nature, to argue that individual dignity requires a stripping of an individual's right to determine his own fate. More, I find the economic arguments persuasive. This may sound distasteful, but if one is truly concerned about social welfare then the use of active euthanasia can promote social welfare in many ways. From the point of view of the patient's family, the economic costs are hardly an abstract theoretical issue. There are choices that must be made, sacrifices, and at some point the forcing of these choices on people is an outrage. Crushing the modest earnings of a family which has worked hard for what little it has is an intolerable intrusion when the choice to pursue active euthanasia is made. There is also the issue of the allocation of medical resources. That huge numbers of people don't have health insurance is well-understood. That medicine in the United States, when compared with Canada or Europe, is extraordinarily expensive is also well-known. In short, medical resources are scarce and it is better to allocate these precious resources to people who both want these resources and to people who need them. For these reasons, I support the concept of active euthanasia. It must also be noted that the majority of the arguments against the use of active euthanasia can be handled by regulatory means or that they are simply too speculative to demand supremacy in this debate. The notion that doctors will face needless stress can easily be managed. Doctors., like patients, are human beings and they deserve to be allowed to act in furtherance of their beliefs. Administrative policies can be created to exempt doctors who don't want to participate in active euthanasia. This is an easy solution, and there are many doctors who will participate. This argument is weak. Further arguments, referring to a more generalized sanctity of life, can also be addressed more effectively by simply delegating the decision to the patient. If someone finds this policy repulsive, then they are free to suffer their own pain when the time comes. Religious values are personal and have no place in public policy. To deny a person the right to euthanasia is to deny them their personal beliefs. Finally, the arguments which suggest that today's terminal patients will become tomorrow's mentally retarded and mentally infirm are too speculative. Many things might happen in the future. An earthquake might destroy California and Texas might convert to Islam. As human beings we have to be aware of the dangers of certain decisions, but we cannot allow an unjustified fear to paralyze us from doing what is good and just. In the final analysis, the debate regarding active euthanasia is complicated and difficult. To impose a certain mandatory standard, no euthanasia or mandatory euthanasia, is no solution at all. The spiritual and ethical differences are present in the individual and that is where the ultimate decision must be placed. Works Cited Read More