Argument for Legalizing Active Euthanasia, Essay Example

Introduction

Within the controversial arena of euthanasia lies an issue equally contentious, that of determining different standards of acceptability between passive and active euthanasia. The former occurs when physicians merely cease efforts to sustain life, and the active when direct measures are taken to end it. This difference, however, is ethically and rationally negligible, as both forms go to external forces prompting the end of life. Moreover, adherence to moral objections cannot be valid when the relevant morality is by no means an absolute. As will be presented in the following, active euthanasia should be legalized because the illegality defies individual choice, ignores family and physician concerns, and ultimately exists to enforce a morality inherently subjective, and consequently invalid as such.

Discussion

There is no need to address here how emphatic most people tend to be on the subject of euthanasia, religious backgrounds aside, simply because it is common and reasonable that human beings should hold human life as sacred, and deserving of every effort to sustain it when disease or injury threatens or greatly impedes it. At the same time, it is important to comprehend that this universal feeling is allowed, in the matter of legalizing euthanasia, to eclipse a concept just as uniformly asserted as truth in civilized societies: the individual’s right to determine the course of their own existence. What occurs, then, is a clash of fundamental ideologies, with the right of choice perceived as less significant. Active euthanasia is illegal primarily because the culture maintains that, when the issue is of deciding life or death, the individual who chooses the latter cannot be trusted to make such a decision, and because it contradicts the greater cultural belief in the inviolable sanctity of life.

The flaw within this is both profoundly irrational and unethical. First and foremost, it ignores that blatant reality that morality is a mutable property, and one subject to immense variation. Any moral stance, such as that upholding the inviolability of life above all, is inextricably tied to culture: “Indeed, we cannot argue any moral question nowadays unless we argue it in social terms” (Archie, Archie). Then, even within arenas seemingly consistent in maintaining specific views, moral dissent occurs. The rightness is, ironically, subject to the individual’s sense of it; even within the strictures of Catholic moralism, there are those who hold that active euthanasia is a moral choice, despite its violating orthodox belief (O’Sullivan, Pecorino).

This element of variability is greatly supported by research revealing distinct differences in how other societies address euthanasia. One comprehensive study of 142 neonatal care units in Europe affirms that, in France and the Netherlands, a majority of physicians believe that active euthanasia related to infants with no significant expectation of minimal health or life is correct, while Spain and Hungary offers a contrary perspective (Cuttini et al). This then rationally supports that there may be no absolute asserting of a common morality because viewpoints, within and external to specific cultures, vary. Far less subject to variation, interestingly, is the generally uniform assertion of the individual’s right to make all decisions related to their own life.

Legalization of active euthanasia is denied, then, due to a moral stance that is allowed to dominate a more absolute and universal ideology.

It is also critical to note, in further challenging ethical concepts opposing legal euthanasia, that there may be no truly valid distinction between passive and active euthanasia, simply because the passive act of allowing someone to die is nonetheless an action (BBC). More exactly, this is a reality that additionally weakens moral objection. It is seen by many that it is “less wrong” to turn off resuscitation devices than to inject a lethal drug, but this is an intrinsically specious argument. In either case, the external party is empowered to act in a way terminating life; those supporting passive euthanasia are then relying on an element of degree as determining morality, and any adherence to life as inviolable may not be subject to degree.

Refutation

It is often held that legalizing active euthanasia would somehow translate to an indiscriminate exercise of it, and this argument typically is put forth as one safely removed from ethical debate. Once such euthanasia is legal, it is felt, there will be unacceptable opportunities for those in great suffering to make hasty decisions based on urgency alone, as well as for family members or physicians to sway the patient unduly, and to serve interests apart from the patients. This argument is wholly untenable, however. To legalize euthanasia would in no way promote euthanasia, or inherently dismiss the many controls ethically and legally necessary for its existence. On the contrary, legalizing active euthanasia implies a full and comprehensive commitment from the society to ensure that no such decision be reached without the most careful consideration from all concerned. Moreover, such a policy reflects an ethical stance that is essentially irrefutable; the gravity of the decision is given the greatest degree of attention, so the morality is focused upon the welfare of the individual, and not the dictates of the larger society.

Conclusion

It is to be expected that euthanasia will long be controversial, if only because it presents cultures with profoundly disturbing realities. Nonetheless, the level of discomfort must not be allowed to generate a blanket morality which defies the more reliable ethic of honoring individual choice as dictated by extreme, individual circumstances. Then, there is no rational basis for denying legal active euthanasia as careless because, clearly, its legalization demands the most intent ethical and medical processes of examination. Similarly, distinctions between passive and active euthanasia only emphasize the weakness of any “morality” opposed to it.

Ultimately, active euthanasia should be legalized because the illegality refutes individual choice, ignores family and physician concerns, and exists only to enforce a morality inherently subjective, and one consequently invalid as such.

Works Cited

Archie, L., & Archie, J. G. Introduction to Ethical Studies: An Open Source Reader. 2003, Web. <http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/ethicsbook.pdf>

BBC. BBC Ethics Guide: Active and Passive Euthanasia. 2013, Web. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/activepassive_1.shtml>

Cuttini, M., et al. “Should Euthanasia Be Legal? An International Survey of Neonatal Intensive Care Units Staff.” Archives of Disease in Childhood-Fetal and Neonatal Edition 89.1 (2004): F19-F24. <http://fn.bmj.com/content/89/1/F19.long?

Sullivan, S. O., & Pecarino, P. A. Ethics: An Online Textbook. 2002, Web. <http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWEB/ETEXTS/ETHICS/CONTENTS