Moral Theory and Moral Issue - Essay Example

Euthanasia, a Moral Issue The of euthanasia has not been discussed on the national stage very often, not mentioned once during the year-long primary and presidential debates, yet is very important to thousands of Americans. Also referred to as “mercy killing” and doctor assisted suicide, euthanasia has been a subject of controversy for centuries. The social acceptability of the concept is gradually increasing. Until recently euthanasia was legal only in Oregon but Washington and Montana have passed laws to allow a humane way of ending a terminally ill persons suffering. Proponents of the practice argue that people should be as free to choose the way they die in the same way they choose the way they lived. In addition, people deserve to die with as little pain and as much dignity as is possible. Those against legalizing euthanasia say that it could open the door to abuses such as people opting to die earlier than needed for economic reasons and being pressured by relatives who have a financial concern. Callous as may sound, children of the terminally ill may not want their parents to spend their inheritance on life extending techniques, a sad scenario that should certainly be considered. Still others say that euthanasia is “playing God” which is not acceptable under any circumstances. Euthanasia is a sensitive subject about a painful prospect but must be addressed because it will likely involve everyone as some point in their lives. The word “euthanasia” is of Greek origin meaning “good death.” 18th Century England scholars referred to euthanasia as a means of “dying well.” (Belanger, 2010). Euthanasia is a medical procedure where a doctor supplies a lethal cocktail of drugs to a terminally ill patient who is in serve pain. The patient administers the dosage, not the doctor. The drugs could be administered either intravenously or orally but the decision is the patients, not the doctor or family members. Because of this, euthanasia is termed “doctor assisted” and not “doctor administered” suicide. Other methods include removing the patient from a life-support machine or simply not resuscitating them after they expire, allowing them to pass on naturally without the aid of “heroic measures.” In the three states and few countries that have legalized euthanasia, the patient must be terminally ill, as decided by three doctors and be fully mentally cognizant. Though it is unfortunate, most people will die a bad death instead of a good death. Euthanasia proponents are motivated not by personal autonomy issues, though that is extremely concerning in a free society, but by human suffering and the lack of a dignified death most people endure. Many, if not most, paths to death involve diseases that slowly eat away at bodily organs causing a torturous ending both for the person dying and their loved ones who watch then die following months of agony. Family members and close fiends watch as the dying person becomes progressively gaunt and thin while either unconscious due to pain medications or experiencing constant pain. Everyone can imagine themselves in that scenario and most, ostensibly, would not want to die in that way and would rather spare themselves and their family the agony. Further, the person dying considers themselves a burden and not a positive in anyone’s life anymore. No person wants to be in that situation. However, this scenario occurs in homes, hospices and hospitals thousand of times every day of the year. It’s a horrific scene that serves no purpose and cannot be assigned a rationale other than to pacify the “morals” of those who think it acceptable to dictate their wishes from outside the actual situation, uninvolved in the daily trauma. It’s easy to imagine a grandmother, the matriarch of the family, a gentle lady who has dedicated her entire adult life to care for the needs of others now spending her last weeks lying feebly in a sterile, foreign environment. She is not able to use the restroom or feed herself without assistance while convulsing, coughing and vomiting in constant pain begging to die as her family watches. It’s not only unfair but cruel, a needless cruelty dictated by law. (“Should,” 2012). If grandmother’s pet cat were in similar end of life circumstance even those persons who are against the legalization of euthanasia would likely be among the first to insist the family do the “humane thing” by putting the cat “to sleep.” Yet somehow, these opponents cannot transfer this simply logic to people. Opponents say they understand the logic but don’t allow pure emotions to cloud their thinking and that other factors are in play. Most would describe doctors as a compassionate sector of society but will argue that they cannot assist in someone’s suicide no matter the circumstances because it would violate oath they signed and believe in, the Hippocratic Oath which states, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” (Growing Campain, 2012). If legalized, euthanasia would also become legitimized causing life itself to be devalued which would lead to people committing suicide before the final stages of life and when not in pain. Most doctors are compassionate and most are ethical but not all. It is widely known that some unscrupulous doctors looking for easy money will write fraudulent prescriptions to patients who want them instead of need them. In other words, some doctors are drug pushers. There is a prescription drug addition epidemic in this country. That is the source. (Growing Campain, 2012). Should euthanasia become legal, doctor’s could prescribe and administer lethal doses to “terminally ill” patients in the same way they provide diet pills to “overweight” patients and amphetamines to “depressed” patients today. Is it possible that an unethical doctor could be tempted with a large cash payment to commit murder? It’s certainly not inconceivable. While no person wants to see their grandmother suffer, legalizing euthanasia could cause an unintended and major social problem. Health care workers including doctors and hospitals would benefit from legalized euthanasia along with the patient and their family. Patients nearing the end of life need continuous medical attention. There is a shortage of health care employees today and with the “Baby Boomer” generation entering their senior years the shortage will be getting progressively worse. The amount of time that must be allocated for terminally ill patients would be better used caring for patients expected to get better. Society is sacrificing the health of persons that expect to get healthy again for those who have no chance for life while forcing them to suffer. Healthcare costs, which are a burden to individuals and the national economy, would be lessened if the distribution of resources; manpower and equipment, were reassigned from the untreatable to the treatable. Just recently, hospitals were reported to be running low or out of vital medicines but not in all areas of the health field. Drug companies tend to manufacture more of what sells the most which includes end-of-life medications. “Literally dozens of extraordinarily expensive cancer drugs and medical devices are now entering the market, all of them are “effective” - they prolong life but the added time is often measurable in weeks and months, not years, which yields very high cost-effectiveness ratios, literally hundreds of thousands of dollars per quality-adjusted life year.” (“Should,” 2012). British philosopher John Stuart Mill supports the moral aspect of euthanasia. A philosophical utilitarian, Mill supported the “Greatest Happiness” principle. Euthanasia satisfies the utilitarian perspective because it stops a persons suffering and affords them the choice to do with their life as they wish. Legalized euthanasia is a way to end life with the greatest happiness for a great number of patients. In the same vein, the Utilitarian Theory holds an assumption of living that includes pursuing happiness. Mill taught that there are two classes of pleasure: a person’s intellect reflects the higher class and their body the lower. When a patient has come to the end of life, Mills believes that the amount of pain the person is in along with the level of pride and dignity involved should be given considerable contemplation. “When a terminally ill person is no longer capable of intellectual pursuits, is in constant pain and must rely on others for all of their needs, Mill feels that it is a more dignified choice to end the suffering, therefore fulfilling the ‘absence of pain’ principle.” (Telfer, 2009). The action to stop a person from suffering is the most valuable gift that can be received. German philosopher Immanuel Kant would disagree with Mill’s assessment. His thoughts on death are come from the Greek “deontology,” meaning “obligation.” Kant’s “Formula of the End in Itself” gives an idea regarding his views on euthanasia. The meaning of ethics, according to Kant, suggests “the more difficult the duty, the greater the moral value.” By this he is implying that one should not interfere with the natural dying process, being strong, true to your morals, is more significant than ending life for self-serving reasons. Furthermore, according to Kantian Ethics the law should be obeyed because there is greater contentment in the realization that you have followed the law without applying situational ethics. Kantian Ethics also maintain that “the intentions of an act are more important than the act itself.” (Telfer, 2009). Kant feared that if society legitimized euthanasia for those mentally competent the society could also legitimize it for the incompetent using similar justifications which might eventually extend to those who do not add to or contribute to society such as prisoners, those elderly but otherwise healthy and the disabled. Euthanasia is practical for those expected to survive and merciful for those who are not. Persons waiting on a long list for organ transplants would be better served if euthanasia was legal. A dying person’s heart, liver or kidney could be given to a child desperate for that organ. Organs removed from patients who died very recently are more viable than if allowed to remain in the body hours after death, if the person dies in their sleep at home for example. Evidently Hippocrates did not consider this option but who can blame him? He lived about 1200 years before the first organ was transplanted. Maybe the oath should be updated to better fit the circumstance of this millennium. It is a straightforward case of reason and compassion rather than perceived ethics and morals. Many wonder how grandma’s cat is more important than grandma, and why its suffering is of importance yet grandma must suffer, and to what end? While the “slippery slope” argument that legitimizing euthanasia for the competent might lead to accepting the procedure for the incompetent or disabled is somewhat valid, it does not balance out well with the compassion argument which carries practical implications too. The truth is thousands of people will die “bad death” this coming year, at least in 47 states. Works Cited Belanger, Emmanuelle A Historical Essay about Notions of a ‘Good Death’: Toward Shared Decision-Making at the End of Life. October 2010. Web. December 7, 2012. http://mcgill-fammedstudies recherchemedfam.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/47507041/Belanger_et_al_FM-online_Gooddeath_final.pdf Telfer, Elizabeth. Philosophical approaches to the dilemma of death with dignity. October 11, 2009. Web. December 7, 2012. http://www.euthanasia.cc/telfer.html “The growing campaign for euthanasia and assisted suicide.” Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life October 31, 2012 Web. December 7, 2012. http://www.mccl.org/euthanasia-and-assisted-suicide.html “Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?” ProCon.org. November 16, 2012. Web. December 7, 2012. http://euthanasia.procon.org/ Read More