Euthanasia 4

There has been much debate in recent American society over the legality and morality of a
patients right-to-die. Current legal statue prohibits any form of euthanasia, however, there
are many moral and ethical dilemmas concerning the controversy. For the purposes of this
essay, I will define euthanasia as the implementation of a decision that a person's life will
come to an end before it need stop. In other words, it is a life ending when it would
otherwise be prolonged. There is an important distinction between voluntary euthanasia
where the decision to terminate life coincides with the individuals wishes and involuntary
euthanasia where the individual concerned does not know about the decision and has not
approved it in advance. I will be dealing specifically with the concept of voluntary
euthanasia, for it seems intuitive that involuntary euthanasia is not only illegal but also
profoundly immoral. Opponents arguments against euthanasia which fail to substantiate
their claims, many proponents arguments highlighted by the right to autonomy, and
empirical examples of legalized euthanasia all prove the moral legitimacy of physician-
assisted-suicide.
Opponents of euthanasia generally point to three main arguments which I will
mention only for the purposes of refuting them. First, many cite the Hippocratic oath
which reads, "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such
counsel" as a reason to oppose euthanasia. Clearly, the Hippocratic oath does condemn
the practice, however, I do not find this as reason enough to reject the moral permissibility
of euthanasia. If the premise of the oath is flawed (i.e., if it is morally permissible for a
physician to assist in suicide), then a physician should not be prohibited from assisting in
suicide simply because of an oath. Indeed, if it is proven (as will be done later in this
essay) that euthanasia is a moral way to end needless suffering, then doctors should be
obliged to fulfill their patients requests for early death. The second argument that
opponents of euthanasia cite is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic of human life being the
ultimate value of existence. This argument is vague at best. At the most well-explained
level, it says that human life is intrinsically valuable and should be preserved in every
instance (because human bodily life is the life of a person) thus euthanasia is wrong
because it is killing before life would naturally end. This argument is proven unsound in
two ways. First, I believe that human life is distinct from personhood. Many patients
requesting euthanasia have ceased to be persons because they are terminally ill and
incapable of enjoying the gift of existence. Thus many of these individuals ( and certainly
those in a vegetative state with a living will that requests euthanasia) are living lives that
are not intrinsically valuable. Second, I disagree with the notion that life is intrinsically
valuable and should be preserved in every instance. I believe that life is valuable only
inasmuch as it is the basis for rational decision-making. (This argument will be elaborated
upon later in the essay). Therefore, we respect the value of life by respecting a persons
autonomy and allowing them to willingly end their life. The final argument given by
opponents of euthanasia is the notion of a slippery slope in which legalized voluntary
euthanasia will snowball and begin to result in widespread involuntary euthanasia. The
basis for this reasoning is that under a system of voluntary euthanasia, doctors must make
the final determination of whether a person can be euthanized or not therefore allowing
them to decide if a patients life is "worth" living. Many feel that if doctors can do this to
competent people, it could snowball to incompetent patients and doctors may make
decisions to euthanize without the will of patients. However, I argue that the moral
permissibility of euthanasia depends on a patients voluntary consent. If a patient does not
expressly wish to die, then a doctor who kills a patient without the consent of that patient
would be acting immorally. From a legal standpoint, the request for euthanasia would have
to come first from the patient, which diminishes the likelihood of involuntary euthanasia
occurring. Given these two scenarios, the idea of a slippery slope is dispelled on both a
theoretical and a pragmatic level. Furthermore, empirical evidence that will be discussed
later disproves the notion of a slippery slope.
In addition to the responses to opponents claims, there are many reasons why
euthanasia is morally acceptable. The justifications for voluntary active euthanasia rest in
four main areas. First, society has a moral obligation to respect individual autonomy when
we can do so without harm to others and when doing so does not violate some other
moral obligation. This is because life is intrinsically valuable only as a result of its
necessity for decision-making and free will. Life without autonomy ceases to be of the
utmost value, rather, a persons right to choose his or her life (and death) course should be
the highest priority. This principle guarantees a persons right to have his or her own
decisions respected in determining medical treatment, including euthanasia. The second
argument for the moral acceptance of euthanasia rests on the premise of mercy and
compassion, two ideals which are essential to human dignity. In most cases when a person
requests euthanasia they are suffering unrelenting and continual pain, and there is no
reasonable possibility of substantial recovery. It is morally repugnant to watch another
person suffer through humiliating helplessness and constant pain when one could prevent
it. It is widely considered humane to put animals that are permanently physically impaired
to death, yet humans cannot currently receive the same mercy under the law, even when
they request it. When we are confronted with suffering which is wholly destructive in its
consequences and, as far as we can tell, could have no beneficial result, there is a moral
obligation to end it. The third affirmation of the moral legitimacy of euthanasia is that of
justice. Euthanasia allows for fairer distribution of medical resources in a society which
lacks sufficient resources to treat all of its people. Because we have an obligation to
relieve suffering, people have a right to whatever medical resources might be effective in
the treatment of their condition. However, the scarcity of resources ensures that not all
medical claims can be met, therefore a fair way to distribute medical resources must be
found. If treatment must be denied to some people with the result that they will die, then
it is better to deny it to those people who are medically unsalvageable and will die soon
with or without treatment. The final justification for euthanasia is that the burden of proof
for rejecting the morality of the practice should rest with its opponents. It is up to any
person or institution wanting to prevent an individual from doing something he or she
wants to do to provide sound reasoning which justifies interference. Since it has already
been proven that opponents arguments against euthanasia fail to substantiate their claim
that it should not occur, then the practice should be considered moral.
The Netherlands successful experiment with legalized voluntary euthanasia is
further proof that physician-assisted-suicide is a moral action. The Dutch legalized
euthanasia partly because they realize that the practice occurs frequently in the status quo
and is now entirely at the discretion of physicians. 85% of deaths in the United States
occur in hospitals or nursing homes; of those 70% involve withholding life-sustaining
treatment. This is certainly a form of euthanasia, yet it is uncontrolled and oftentimes
performed without the patient's knowledge. On the contrary, the Dutch system brings the
question of euthanasia into the open and allows for regulations which lessen the likelihood
of a slippery slope. The requirements for euthanasia under Dutch law are that patients
must ask to be euthanized, they must be fully informed of their medical condition,
suffering must be intolerable, and the process of carrying out the patients death wish must
be performed by a doctor. These stringent guidelines have created an environment where
2,300 individuals have found relief in the form of euthanasia, an number which represents
just 1.8 % of all deaths in the Netherlands. Only 1/3 of all requests for euthanasia are
honored by physicians, which is proof against the slippery slope argument. A study
published by the Dutch government in 1992 further dispels the slippery slope theory. It
reported that since euthanasia had been legalized, only 2 cases have been documented
where a patient was euthanized without request. In both cases the patient was suffering
severe pain, and was terminally ill. Given the large numbers of deaths from euthanasia,
this statistic seems to be very small in comparison. Also, in no instance has a patient been
put to death against his or her expressed or implied wish. This empirical evidence
concretely disproves the notion that voluntary euthanasia will somehow snowball to
involuntary euthanasia. It is also powerful proof that voluntary euthanasia can be carried
out legally and with no great harms to society or individuals.
The unsubstantiated claims of euthanasia opponents, many affirmative arguments
supporting the moral permissibility of euthanasia, and the successful Dutch experiment
with legalization all prove that euthanasia is a legitimate moral practice. If we do not
allow for individual autonomy in determining the scope and extent of medical treatment,
then we are sentencing many terminally ill patients to a final stage of life filled with misery
and wracked with unrelenting pain. Instead, the moral and ethical course of action is to
grant patients who request euthanasia the mercy and relief of a death with dignity.