Facts And Ethics Behind Euthanasia Essay, Research Paper
Facts and Ethics Behind Euthanasia
Euthanasia is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary as
“the action of killing an individual for reasons considered to be
merciful” (469). Here, killing is described as the physical action
where one individual actively kills another. Euthanasia is tolerated
in the medical field under certain circumstances when a patient is
suffering profoundly and death is inevitable. The word “euthanasia”
comes from the Greek eu, “good”, and thanatos, “death,” literally,
“good death”; however, the word “euthanasia” is much more difficult to
define. Each person may define euthanasia differently. Who is to
decide whether a death is good or not? Is any form of death good? All
of these questions can be answered differently by each person. It is
generally taken today to mean that act which a health care
professional carries out to help his/her patient achieve a good death.
Suicide, self-deliverance, auto-euthanasia, aid-in-dying,
assisted suicide — call it what you like — can be justified by the
average supporter of the so-called “right to die movement” for the
following reasons: The first reason is that an advanced terminal
illness is causing unbearable suffering to the individual. This
suffering is the most common reason to seek an early end. Second, a
grave physical handicap exists that is so restricting that the
individual cannot, even after due care, counseling, and re-training,
tolerate such a limited existence. This handicap is a fairly rare
reason for suicide; most impaired people cope remarkably well with
their affliction, but there are some who would, at a certain point,
rather die. We say that there is a second form of suicide; justifiable
suicide, that is a rational and planned self-deliverance from a
painful and hopeless disease which will shortly end in death. I do not
think the word “suicide” sits well in this context but we are stuck
with it. Suicide is the taking of one’s own life. Why does the term
euthanasia even exist? Is euthanasia not suicide? A differentiation
must be made between the two. Suicide is condoned by society as being
unacceptable but euthanasia is viewed as moral and acceptable in most
instances. The term “self-deliverance” is difficult to understand
because the news media is in love with the words “doctor-assisted
suicide”. This is because the news media is dissecting the notion of
whether or not doctors, who are supposed to preserve life, should
partake in euthanasia. The media is failing to look at the actual
issue of euthanasia, but instead, they are looking at the decision of
whether or not doctors should assist in euthanasia. Also, we have to
face the fact that the law calls all forms of self-destruction
suicide.
There are ethical guidelines for euthanasia. If the following
guidelines are met, then euthanasia is considered acceptable. The
person must be a mature adult. This is essential. The exact age will
depend on the individual but the person should not be a minor who
would come under quite different laws. Secondly, the person must have
clearly made a considered decision. An individual has the ability now
to indicate this with a living will (which applies only to
disconnection of life supports) and can also, in today’s more open and
tolerant society, freely discuss the option of euthanasia with
health-care professionals, family, lawyers, etc. The euthanasia must
not be carried out at the first knowledge of a life-threatening
illness, and reasonable medical help must have been sought to cure or
at least slow down the terminal disease. I do not believe in giving up
life the minute a person is informed that he or she has a terminal
illness. Life is precious, you only live once, and it is worth a
fight. It is when the fight is clearly hopeless and the agony,
physical and mental, is unbearable that a final exit is an option. The
treating physician must have been informed, asked to be involved, and
his or her response been taken into account. The physician’s response
will vary depending on the circumstances, of course, but they should
advise their patients that a rational suicide is not a crime. It is
best to inform the doctor and hear his or her response. For example,
the patient might be mistaken. Perhaps the diagnosis has been misheard
or misunderstood. Patients raising this subject were met with a
discreet silence or meaningless remarks in the past but in today’s
more accepting climate most physicians will discuss potential end of
life actions. The person must have a Will disposing of his or her
worldly effects and money.
This shows evidence of a tidy mind, an orderly life, and
forethought, all things which are important to an acceptance of
rational suicide. The person must have made plans to die that do not
involve others in criminal liability or leave them with guilty
feelings. Assistance in suicide is a crime in most places, although
the laws are gradually changing, and very few cases ever come before
the courts. The only well-known instance of a lawsuit concerning this
is the doctor-assisted suicide of Dr. Kevorkian. The person must leave
a note saying exactly why he or she is taking their life. This
statement in writing removes the chance of misunderstandings or blame.
It also demonstrates that the departing person is taking full
responsibility for the action. These are all guidelines for allowing a
euthanasia to take place. By this, I mean the doctor is involved in
the patient’s decision and actively performs the euthanasia. I believe
that passive euthanasia would show a lack of interest on the doctor’s
part. Simply allowing a patient to die does not require a doctor’s
presence.
Passive euthanasia should not even exist. Euthanasia is
defined as “the action of killing…” James Rachels states in his
“Active and Passive Euthanasia” that “The important difference between
active and passive euthanasia is that in passive euthanasia, the
doctor does not do anything to bring about the patient’s death. The
doctor does nothing and the patient dies of whatever ills already
afflict him. In active euthanasia, however, the doctor does something
to bring about the patient’s death: he [actively] kills him” (1024).
Is allowing a patient to die considered to be an action? Rachels
states “…the process of being allowed to die can be relatively slow
and painful, whereas being given a lethal injection is relatively
quick and painless” (1020). Disconnecting respiratory devices is not
an acceptable method of euthanasia. It causes the patient to starve
for oxygen and gasp for it, but when he/she cannot breathe, the body
is starved of oxygen and suffocates. This is not merciful by any
means. Rachels also states, “One reason why so many people think that
there is an important moral difference between active and passive
euthanasia is that they think killing someone is morally worse than
letting someone die” (1022). The idea that a patient utilizes a
medical device and has grown dependent on it for life is a grim one
indeed; however, relieving a patient who relies on this machine for
his/her life by simply cutting it off is not acceptable. Leon Kass
states in his “Why Doctor’s Must Not Kill,” “Ceasing medical
intervention, allowing nature to take its course, differs
fundamentally from mercy killing. For one thing, death does not
necessarily follow the discontinuance of treatment” (1034). This
states my point exactly. Euthanasia is the physical action of putting
someone to a painless death who is suffering tremendously. The passive
nature of allowing someone to die is not euthanasia. This is not an
physical action taken by a doctor to ease a patient’s suffering and
agony.
The doctor should decide whether the ailment is curable and if
it is not, he/she should decide whether the patient will live
productively for months or even years to come. If the ailment is not
immediately fatal, will it cause pain and suffering for the rest of
the patient’s life? How old is the patient? Will he/she live much
longer anyway? All these factors should come into play when deciding
whether a patient should be euthanized; however, the doctor’s answers
to these questions may differ from those of the patient and his/her
family. It is up to the patient’s doctor to decide whether the
patient’s ailment is indeed curable. The patient should be presented
with the facts. The doctor should tell the patient exactly how it is
and not project the false hope that the patient may recover. With this
information, the patient can make an informed decision and feel that
it is the best one. Sidney Hook states in his “In Defense of Voluntary
Euthanasia” that “Each one should be permitted to make his own choice-
especially when no one else is harmed by it. The responsibility for
the decision, whether deemed wise or foolish, must be with the
chooser” (1028). This is evidenced quite simply by the mere fact that
everyone has civil rights and liberties. No one can decide who should
die and who should not. Everyone is in complete control of his/her own
life and; therefore, should be free to decide.
Having considered the arguments in favor of auto-euthanasia,
the person should also contemplate the arguments against it. First,
should the person go into a hospice program instead and receive not
only first-class pain management but comfort care and personal
attention? Put simply, hospices make the best of a bad job, and they
do so with great skill and love. The right-to-die movement supports
their work, but not everyone wants a lingering death, not everyone
wants that form of care. Today many terminally ill people take the
marvelous benefits of home hospice programs and still accelerate the
end when suffering becomes too much. A few hospice leaders claim that
their care is so perfect that there is absolutely no need for anyone
to consider euthanasia. While I have no wish to criticize them, they
are wrong to claim perfection. Most, but not all, terminal pain can
today be controlled with the sophisticated use of drugs, but the
point these leaders miss is that personal quality of one’s live is
foremost to some people. If one’s body has been so destroyed by
disease that it is not worth living, that is an intensely individual
decision which should not be swayed. In some cases of the final days
in hospice care, when the pain is very serious, the patient is drugged
into unconsciousness. If that way is acceptable to the patient, then
so be it, but some people do not wish their final hours to be in that
fashion. There should be no conflict between hospice and euthanasia,
both are valid options in a caring society. Both are appropriate to
different people with differing values.
The other consideration is related to religion: does suffering
glorify a person? Is suffering, as related to Jesus Christ’s suffering
on the cross, a part of the preparation for meeting God? Are you
merely a steward of your life, which is a gift from God, which only He
may take away. If your answers to these questions is yes, then you
should not be involved in any form of euthanasia. Remember that there
are millions of atheists, as well as people of differing religions,
and they all have rights, too. Many Christians who believe in
euthanasia justify it by reasoning that the God whom they worship is
loving and tolerant, and would not wish to see them in agony. They do
not see their God as being so vengeful as refusing them the Kingdom of
Heaven if they accelerated the end of their life to avoid prolonged,
unbearable suffering. A doctor should not be allowed to “play God” and
decide who should live and who should die. In fact, even the patient
should not be allowed to, but it is the patient’s life and he/she has
to live it. So, it is only logical to allow the patient, and no one
else, to decide.
Another consideration must be that, by ending one’s life
before its natural end, is one is depriving oneself of a valuable
period of good life? Is that last period of love and companionship
with family and friends worth hanging on for? Even the most determined
supporters of euthanasia hang on until the last minute; sometimes too
long, and lose control. They, too, gather with their families and
friends to say goodbyes. There are important reunions and often
farewell parties. Euthanasia supporters enjoy life and love living,
and their respect for the sanctity of life is as strong as anybody’s.
Yet they are willing, if their dying is distressing to them, to give
up a few weeks or a few days at the very end and leave under their own
control. Ultimately, the decision lies with the beholder. It is the
right of a person to make his/her own choice, with some limitations.
It is the doctor’s responsibility to provide the patient with an
accurate prognosis so that the patient may make an educated decision.