The Ethics of Euthanasia - Essay Example

Biomedical Ethics Euthanasia can be described as the act of condoning the death of an individual based on the grounds that the person is suffering from a critical medical condition or injury and death is inevitable. Euthanasia has been defined by experts as the intentional cessation of an individual’s life by another person on the grounds of having mercy on the individual for their suffering. Euthanasia is classified as active which involves giving the patient a lethal injection to make death swift and painless. Passive euthanasia involves letting the patient die by stopping the employment of extraordinary means to alleviate a patient’s suffering and imminent death (Pence 120). There are various critics of the moral considerations behind euthanasia and what makes one mode of euthanasia agreeable and the other unacceptable. One such critic is James Rachel who argues that the moral principle behind the American Medical Association’s (AMA) policy on euthanasia has no moral importance. Rachel’s argument on passive and active euthanasia is right according to me because both methods ultimately lead to death of an individual. According to the AMA, passive euthanasia entails the doctor doing nothing to bring about the death of the patient. This is despite the fact that not doing something to curtail the patient’s death amounts to doing something because of the consequence that follows. The patient dies from the doctor’s inaction which can be interpreted as an action that leads to death. According to Rachel, not acknowledging inaction as a viable action on the part of the doctor is a flawed assumption that puts the association’s grounds on the matter to question. This is because euthanasia emerges from humanitarian efforts aimed at reducing the patients suffering and the burden they might pose due to incurable illnesses (Pence 188). In most cases than not, passive euthanasia results to prolonged suffering for the patient because of cessation of pain alleviating interventions. This is in direct contravention to the foundation upon which euthanasia is laid as a principle of alleviating patient’s pain and suffering. On the other hand, active euthanasia involves the injection or administration of a substance(S) that causes the swift and painless death of the patient. This is more in line with the original intentions of allowing euthanasia to be an option in medical practice. Active euthanasia ensures that the patient does not suffer anymore as long as the decision is consensual and legal. The AMA’s postulation can be construed as an attempt to shield doctors from blame that might emerge from controversial ethical issues that result from cases where euthanasia is involved (Pence 242). Another explanation for AMA’s support for passive euthanasia over active euthanasia despite the clear indications of which mode is more effective and considerate, is to protect/control doctors from using euthanasia unconventionally in practice. Where death is concerned, there is no moral justification for the phenomena because death is always perceived as a bad thing by everyone in society. The AMA’s distinction of passive and active euthanasia as a moral question does not apply to euthanasia because of the moral conditioning of society with regard to death. It would be more appropriate to apply ethical considerations on the matter of euthanasia because the way it is executed heavily relies on ethics. The humanitarian principles that support euthanasia are based on the sound morals of alleviating pain and suffering (Pence 309). Thus, AMA’s assumption that passive euthanasia is more morally correct than active euthanasia; it is a selfish notion meant to serve and protect only one aspect of the two sided affair. The trolley problem presents a situation where one is faced with the difficult task of making a life and death decision between the life of five people or one person. Application of morals in this situation is not appropriate because there is no viable measure or gauge for the value of human life. It is not right to say that the life one person is worth sacrificing to save the life of five people. This is because there is no justifiable sense available for equating one human life to that of five. This is because human life is invaluable and can not be equated to anything or considered the way that commodities are treated in the market where the value of one mango is less than that of five mangos (Pence 48). On the other hand, logical considerations can be applied to justify where a choice is made by regarding human life as a countable and tangible aspect. Logical considerations can be used to justify the notion of attaching numerical value to human life because it is arguably more logical in the context of the trolley problem. Saving five people by sacrificing one person will result in an aggregate total of four lives that have been spared (Pence 306). This is arrived at by including the sacrificed individual as a figure in the total of the number of individuals whose lives were under consideration. The postulate that sacrificing one person to save the life of five as a moral choice is absolutely inappropriate. The moral basis of this postulate is that human life does not have a quantifier to peg its value on a predetermined parameter. This can argued form the perspective of the role that each individual has to play both in their lives and that of others. Different people play different roles in their lives and the lives of others and in doing so; they either add or reduce value of life on either front(Pence 182). Thus, following this notion it would be appropriate to say that there is no way of knowing the value of a person’s role both in their life and that of others. The logical consideration is regarding the trolley problem is in direct contrast to the moral consideration. The trolley problem has no viable solution that ensures there is no loss of life which is fundamental concern posed by this problem. A logical option can be used to justify the sacrifice of one person to save the life of five people, but it does not change the fact that life will be lost in any eventuality in the situation. Work Cited. Pence, G. E. Medical Ethics: Accounts of Ground-Breaking Cases in Medical Ethics. 6Th Edition. New York: McGraw- Hill Publishers. 2010. Print. Read More