A Matter of Life or Death, Essay Example

The Battle of Assisted Suicide

“Count no man happy, until he’s dead”, according to the famous Greek philosopher Aristotle. The dichotomy of life or death is a struggle that rages within the ethical fabric of American culture. It is an uncomfortable subject in the confines of most social circles. Many people from different walks of life and ethical views may be extremists on both ends of the spectrum in every way yet be grossly torn over this delicate subject.

There are many factors to contend with regarding the ethics of euthanasia with justifiable arguments on both sides of the debate. Does a person have the right to commit suicide? Is it morally acceptable for another person to aid in the mercy killing of another human being? The manner in which a society grapples with these sobering questions helps to define its ever- evolving standards of conviction. However, it is a topic that many individuals would rather not deal with (LeBaron, 1999).

Human beings are enjoying longer life spans due to many advances in medicine and biotechnology, which has overcome many traditional causes of death. As of 2009, the average life span of an American has risen an astounding 8.7 years over the past five decades years (World Bank, 2009). The longer we live introduces new challenges that we must face in the constant struggle over death. People in third world countries continue to die from older causes of fatality including starvation, malaria, measles and smallpox. However, western civilizations of the 21st century, with increased life spans, are discovering new diseases including Alzheimer’s, cancer and AIDS (LeBaron, 1999).

According to the American Medical Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, euthanasia is defined as “the act of or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions of diseases” (Wolhandler, 1984). Euthanasia was originally popularized in Great Britain in the 19th century. However, the debate on the right to life began after the horrors of the Nazi regime during World War II (LeBaron, 1999).

The case against euthanasia is the fundamental disregard for the sanctity of life. Opponents believe that euthanasia will lead to an increasing impassive perspective of the concept of death, which encourages the abuse of the termination of life. This argument brings into question the slippery slope of identifying individuals who would be qualifiable candidates for euthanasia. Would the government start to secretly extend mercy killing beyond the terminally ill to “objectionable” populations including the mentally ill, the elderly, or the physically handicapped? Other fears include the possibility that people would be euthanized against their will (LeBaron, 1999). “What slope could be more slippery than one with no guardrails whatsoever?” (Gifford, 1993).

Religion is also a notable factor in the right to life argument. According to the majority of world religions, the act of taking one’s life goes against the will of God’s right to human life. The act of assisted suicide is damning to the soul of a man, leaving him in a state of perpetual rejection from the love of God. Christianity often references the suffering of Christ to make a point that suffering can have a place in the master plan. The agony draws the sufferer close to Christ and his redeeming sacrifice. Pope John Paul II once stated that “Down through the centuries and generations, it has been seen that in suffering there is concealed a particular power that draws a person interiorly to Christ, a special grace.” (BBC, 2011).

The moral high ground in the case against euthanasia is to alleviate suffering and to offer as much comfort as possible to the informed to help them carry the burden of suffering. Human beings do not have the right to provoke the final act of death. Suffering is a testament to a person’s character, which is a lesson to others in how to exist during times of sorrow.

The crux of the argument in support of euthanasia lies within the individual’s fundamental right to die. Proponents believe that there is constitutional freedom that allows an individual to choose how and when they end their life (LeBaron, 1999).

Recognition of the right of self-determination is the condition for the concept of a community not based on force. Force used to impose on others, against their wishes, what one thinks is best for them is thus not allowed. This view undergirds a peaceable accommodation to the fact that there is a pluralism of moral beliefs: although one may not be able to agree about what constitutes good life or good death, one can agree to let each make his own choices, as long as those choices do not involve direct and significant violence against others. (Wolhandler, 1984).

Advances in modern medicine have prolonged life beyond natural means, which promotes the need for euthanasia. Hospitals have eliminated the concept of natural death. We have blurred the lines between active and passive death to a point that it no longer exists. The terminally often experience so much pain, that they succumb to death by an overdose on pain medication. This act is called “passive euthanasia”, which is protected by law. According to proponents for euthanasia, there is no distinction between passive euthanasia and the direct action of terminating a life (LeBaron, 1999).

Active euthanasia allows the individual more control over their death, which leads to an increased ability to face suffering and death effectively (Newman, 1991). Proponents for euthanasia also contend that the ban on euthanasia could lead to increased instances of suicide for patients that are diagnosed in early stages of diseases, like Alzheimer’s or Lou Gehrig’s disease, while they are still physically and mentally sound. Having the option to end their life would encourage people to live longer and calmly accept the inevitable (LeBaron, 1999).

The majority of Americans have embraced a form of “double effect euthanasia” in which patients refuse food and water, while they are allowed to die without suffering, under clinical administration of analgesics. As the debate continues to evolve, the individual is left to handle these decisions with their own intellect beyond societal mores when faced with the finality of their lives (LeBaron, 1999).

The general ambiguities over euthanasia are arguably made explicit in such concepts as “double effect euthanasia.” This approach to the issue may be viewed as an attempt to defer the ethical decision as whether or not the individual has the right to die, through the adherence to a variation of what may be termed a “soft” form of subjectivity, or in other words, an unwritten acknowledgement of the right to euthanasia, according to a covert choice to terminate one’s life. Furthermore, such a general acceptance can be viewed as the symptom of a part of the public’s opposition to accept into written law provisions that are deemed favorable to euthanasia.

In this regard, the public remains wholly indecisive regarding what to do in such cases when a patient is faced with this existential decision; moreover, this suggests a general hesitancy in defining a greater ethical position within society in terms of what this society believes to be its fundamental values and norms.

Obviously, the continued relevance of the euthanasia debate shows the difficulty in defining a basic ethical framework for society. That present day society is too diverse and is comprised of too many different moral perspectives prevents a greater ethical decision from being finalized and reached. The writing into law of an act that is in favor of euthanasia would essentially be commensurate to the position that contemporary society has a definitive and finalized stance towards issues of human existence and what constitutes the good life. The boldness of such a gesture is perhaps what prevents such an act from being realized: accordingly, that present day society chooses to maintain that euthanasia is on a de jure level legal, while also admitting euthanasia in a de facto form such as that of “double effect euthanasia”, demonstrates a basic indecisiveness within society regarding its basic ethical norms.

In the case of the United States, such an indecisiveness can be traced back to the diversity of the country itself. That the United States is composed of many different religious and ethnic groups, each with their own unique ethical worldviews, suggests that a definitive stance towards the issue written into law would compromise this very diversity. In other words, since there are so many different perspectives on ethics, the most logical decision is to promote a framework in which choice is paramount, such that separate groups, according to their beliefs, may decide on their own terms what is best for them and their loved ones.

At the same time, the legal rejection of euthanasia can be viewed as a limiting of a fundamental choice within society. That is to say, from the outset the country has made its ethical or moral decision: euthanasia is illegal. This is, despite the embracement of double effect euthanasia, a clear ethical position. Accordingly, that ambiguities concerning euthanasia still remain within the public consciousness despite a clear law that forbids euthanasia indicates that there is no singular ethical perspective in America.

The decision to legalize euthanasia would essentially open up different possibilities for the plurality of groups that constitute America, each with their own ethical position: individuals would be allowed to either choose in favor of euthanasia or against euthanasia. In this regard, the legalization of euthanasia is a less rigorous ethical decision, insofar as choice remains open: the legalization of euthanasia, of course, does not necessarily entail that all patients facing a critical situation would have to undergo euthanasia.

The aforementioned fears that such a declaration in law could possibly lead to abuses in the system – for example, that the medical profession would deliberately recommend euthanasia – nevertheless must be understood as a pure speculation as to the consequences of legalization. This is a certain totalitarian fear that exists in those opposed to euthanasia within the American public: by giving the government the right to decide whether euthanasia is illegal or not, one grants too much power to the government.

From this perspective, the euthanasia issue repeats the fundamental delineation of American political life according to conservative and liberal sides. The decision for the legalization of euthanasia is the decision for a definitive government intervention, according to the law’s support for euthanasia; the government is intruding into people’s lives. Accordingly, the “double effect euthanasia” provides a means by which to work around the strict stipulation of law. Yet this position is simultaneously one that maintains the relevance of government intervention: the government also decides that euthanasia is illegal.

Following such an ambiguity along ideological lines, and furthermore, the ethical ambiguity that constitutes the diversity of social and ethnic groups which constitute America, it would seem that the best approach would not be to outlaw euthanasia, but rather to allow for its possibility on an individual or case by case basis. To prevent the encouragement of euthanasia by the medical industry, such a personal or individual approach to euthanasia that would need to be stressed in law: i.e., that each individual possesses the right to decide on his or her own life. Such a criterion would satisfy the underlying individualism in American society, in which opposition to the stipulations of centralized government is invariably viewed as negative. At the same time, this approach would appeal to the liberalized segment of the population, which rejects religious based influences on everyday human existence. A solution to the euthanasia ethical debate thus rests in a compromise that stresses the concerns of individual citizens, while also emphasizing the individual liberty of these same citizens.

References

BBC. Ethics – Euthanasia: Arguments of Euthanasia. Retrieved May 7, 2011. From http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml

Gifford, E. (1993). Artres moriendi: Active euthanasia and the art of dying. UCLA Law Review 40: 1545-1583.

LeBaron Jr., G. (1999, August 1). The Ethics of Euthanasia. Quantronics, Inc. Retrieved May 6, 2011, from LeBaron, Garn. (1999, August 01). The ethics of euthanasia. Retrieved from http://www.quantonics.com/The_Ethics_of_Euthanasia_By_Garn_LeBaron.

Newman, S. (1991). Euthanasia: Orchestrating “the last syllable of …time”. Pittsburgh Law Review 53:153-191.

Wolhandler, S. (1984). Voluntary active euthanasia for the terminally ill and the constitutional right to privacy. Cornell Law Review 69:363-382.

The World Bank. (2009). Life Expectancy at Birth, total (years). Retrieved May 5, 2011, from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN?cid=GPD_10