Euthanasia, Essay Example

Introduction

Feelings regarding euthanasia, or the assisting in ending the life of an individual who desires to die, have long been a source of intense conflict and contrasting legislation.  On one level, the idea of it is largely repellant to most people, and not only due to religious and/or moral views; it is simply incomprehensible to many that anyone, even in great physical distress, would elect to end their life.  Conversely, advocates assert that terminally ill patients, along with healthy individuals who have made such a personal decision, should not be subject to the misgivings or ignorance of others, and that the act of suicide is a personal right.  The law, as noted, is somewhat caught in the middle of all this.   Laws reflect societal standards and ideologies, and it is difficult to draft acceptable legislation acknowledging euthanasia, if only because motives of sanity and/or the self-interest of others concerned are inherently questionable.  These issues notwithstanding, the inescapable fact remains that, if human beings possess any unalienable rights at all, the right to determine the actual state of a person’s life must rest with that person alone.  Opposition to euthanasia  is usually little more than personally motivated distaste for the practice, and the rights of the individual to voluntarily end their life must be respected.

Basic Issues, Pro and Con

Opponents of euthanasia frequently turn to ancillary considerations, or any means available pointing to a lack of genuine will on the part of the person seeking death. This most commonly takes the form of holding that terminally ill patients, while asserting that they are independently making such a choice, are actually acting under duress; concerns about burdening their loved ones with extended responsibilities of care and expense are the motivating forces, and should not be respected as choice (Schwartz, Preece, Hendry  99). This in turn relates to the larger issue of sanity. While it is not usually argued that a person unwilling to be a burden to others is not sane, the same objection applies, in that no independent, free will is making this most crucial of decisions.   Furthermore, and more to the crux of the sanity debates, the dilemma is that many believe that any choice to voluntarily die is inherently not fully sane. The determination itself, in the minds of euthanasia opponents, is all that is needed to prove that the ambition stems from irrational thinking.

This argument is powerful because it is appears to be removed from more emotional, less ostensibly religiously-motivated,  issues with euthanasia. Nevertheless, it is seriously flawed because, in place of a faith-based foundation of belief, it relies on a specific morality. The notion that sanity is the key component serves to give this argument a detached, scientific aspect.  Morality, however, is intrinsically a debatable issue, and one not dependent on rationality for its conclusions. It is, in fact, as emotionally charged and culturally variable as any religious basis for objection, because a person may morally argue that suicide is better than causing extended hardship for loved ones. The same parameters that are accepted to determine a person’s degree of sanity in other arenas must be employed with euthanasia as well, for the failure to do so implicitly translates to that conviction that, morally speaking, the desire to die must be insane.

Furthermore, choices for euthanasia usually are made based on realistic circumstances, and sanity is inextricably tied to balanced behavior, or justice. Euthanasia meets the standard: “Since the person to be killed mercifully gives free and informed consent to being killed, no injustice will be done” (May 241).

The second major objection to euthanasia is one religiously prompted.  Virtually every recognized Western and Eastern faith has serious issues with euthanasia, most of which rely on the concept that life is a gift from a higher being, and that a voluntary ending of it is unthinkably sacrilegious. The Catholic Church in particular is unrelenting on this point; by its canons, murder may be absolved, but suicide is the one unforgivable sin. As religious beliefs tend to be visceral elements within belief systems, it is difficult to counter the assertions they present.

However, the separation between church and state must be applied to this issue, for it goes to the heart of the distinction; that is to say, no matter the faith or lack thereof of either the potential suicide or the opponent of it, the matter is removed from religious ideologies. More precisely, the separation of church and state does not imply the absence of the latter, but only reinforces that creed and belief may not be used to determine the extent of personal liberty. No person’s rights as an individual may be defined by secular thinking. Moreover, deep-seated religious convictions against euthanasia tend to conveniently bypass mortal prerogatives exercised, and approved of by the churches, elsewhere. As philosopher David Hume has pointed out, medical practices are similarly violations of such doctrine because they intervene to save life that often would otherwise, and naturally, perish (Paterson 16). In a very real sense, religious opponents to euthanasia cannot have it both ways; either the usage of medical technology to influence the length of life is acceptable, or it is not.

Lastly, euthanasia is commonly seen as an “escape” mechanism which overlooks the very real possibilities that the dire circumstances may change, and the individual may desire to live, after all. While this is not necessarily a morally based objection, it nonetheless ignores the central component within euthanasia: it is a choice made by a person, and any such choice that does no harm to others may be argued, but not legally prevented. As Judge Davis remarked in the 1997 landmark case in Florida, when terminally-ill patient Charles Hall petitioned the courts for the right to a physician-assisted suicide, that right  “…is based on the privacy and equal protection clauses in the state and federal constitutions” (Scherer, Simon  33).   The motives and ambitions of anyone may be challenged or questioned, but the right itself must be inviolable, and the result of an exercised, fundamental right does nothing to reduce its stature as a guaranteed liberty.

Conclusion

As with the equally heated issue of abortion, it is often forgotten that those who support the legislating of euthanasia are not actual proponents of it. To assert that a voluntary decision to commit suicide should be allowed by law is a far cry from any desire to see people die. On the contrary, the efforts to legalize euthanasia are typically focused merely to protect a right under the most extreme human conditions. People facing painful and/or prolonged pain, to be inevitably followed by death from disease or some other form of incapacitation, should not be forced to go on living only to conform to a moral imperative outside of their personal will and/or obligations. The law must, ultimately, uphold and respect itself, if it stands for personal freedom at all. Opposition to euthanasia  is typically born from a profound antipathy  for the practice on moral or religious grounds, and the rights of any person to voluntarily end their life must be respected as legal entitlements in a free society.

Works Cited

May, W. E.  Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life.  Huntingdon, IN: Our Sunday Visiting Publishing Company, 2000. Print.

Paterson, C.  Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: A Natural Law Ethics Approach. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2008. Print.

Scherer, J. M., & Simon, R. J.  Euthanasia and the Right to Die:A Comparative View. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1999. Print.

Schwartz, L.,  Preece, P. E., & Hendry, R. A.  Medical Ethics: A Case Based Approach. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Health Sciences, 2002. Print.