Ethical Dilemma on Euthanasia

Title: ETHICAL DILEMMA ON EUTHANASIA

By: Adip Huissain

ABSTRACT:   Should human beings have the right to decide on the matter of one's own life and death?  There is a popular view against euthanasia that even if it is morally right it might not be in the person's best interest and can be abused. Moreover, voluntary euthanasia is often believed to be the start of slippery slot that leads to involuntary euthanasia and killing people who are thought to be undesirable. This article focuses on plethora of dilemma encompassing euthanasia and attempt to argue in favour of voluntary euthanasia. The article also brings attention to the possibility of institutionalizing legalized voluntary euthanasia with proper norms and regulations. This article has two-parts. In the first part, I’ll argue about the plethora of arguments raised against euthanasia. In the second part I’ll refute all the above arguments and will argue in favour of voluntary euthanasia and its legalisation.

INTRODUCTION

Euthanasia means an act or calculated course of emission intended to shorten life with supposedly merciful motivation in order to relieve suffering and pain.

Theoretical backgrounds: definitions^[1]

Part I

ARGUMENTS ABOUT EUTHANASIA

Extracting from Emmanuel Kant’s philosophy that human beings are an end in themselves and not merely see them as the means to an end, it is immoral to kill a person irrespective of the condition of that individual. Life is good in themselves and human beings have irreducible and inalienable values To, achieve a moral outcome, it can never be justified to use an immoral means. Further according to Kant, human beings have good will and what he means by good will is our power of rational and moral choice that is found in humans and is unconditionally good.

Also, religious ideas dominated on the issue of life and death where they defined life as sacrosanct. It is wrong to take life intentionally and argues lot more about the sanctity of human beings. The decision of taking life not for us to decide but God.

The advocates of euthanasia view that it is better to kill someone than let them suffer, better to fulfil someone’s request to be killed than to resist. Its premised on the view that some lives are so rigid or personal autonomy so important that justifies killing. But on the contrary there is two approach that goes against euthanasia. One is, it accepts the reality of physical and psychological pain but deals with suffering not by killing the suffering person but by giving every reasonable assistance and accompanying them with love and care. The second approach is giving higher values on human lives. Euthanasia advocates are of the view that the point of life is in fulfilling preferences. But on the contrary here it views human lives have an intrinsic meaning. It is intrinsically valued. However reduced are condition we have a radical dignity from our first breath to our last and that’s the basis of the equality and human rights. It is for this reason we protect even the hopeless. So, by every moral means to be used to relieve suffering, a doctor must never kill their patient.

Many people think pain and suffering should be reasonably minimised. It is agreeable up to an extent but killing a suffering person is never a reasonable way to deal with suffering and if mercy stripes us in this area, we should first be ensuring every possible thing was done to relieve people’s pain and suffering and could ensure that who could benefit at access to proper pain management and palliative care.

If relieving suffering is the euthanasia debate is all about. But where does it lead. Because euthanasia can relieve not just the dying people but the severely sick, the mentally ill, those tired of life, not just competent adult but babies, children, the unconscious and the disabled. If it is about relieving suffering than there are lot more people than those who are terminally ill or have some medical problem. Advocates of euthanasia argue on autonomy that life is so low that they don’t want to continue. So, they decide when and how to end their lives. But on the contrary it reduces people’s autonomy because they embed the social expectation that certain people will elect death. People whose autonomy is already reduced by pain, fear, depression, at the message that they are no longer protected by homicide laws and might be better off dead.

The community is likely to do less for the disabled, elderly and leave them feeling worthless. So ironically in the name of autonomy, peoples’ freedom is narrowed, and then the very lives, the premise of their freedom would decrease. Till now it has been a defining aspect of our health profession that the doctor never kills or harms his patient. Do we want our health professionals assessing which patient should live and which should die? Do we want them gradually desensitised to harming and killing? Till now it has been a defining aspect of our law that human rights are protected, human rights are universal. But there are no exceptions to homicide laws but legalising euthanasia would create two classes of citizens, those who lives are invaluable and those whose lives are worthless. The purpose of law is to protect the innocent and the vulnerable. It is the prohibition on killing that acts as a cornerstone of our laws and social relationship and protect each of us impartially and equally.

WHO DIES IN EUTHANASIA

        The weak, the elderly, the sick, the handicapped, the deprived babies, etc. will die in euthanasia. No wonder the elders and the disabled will be in a lot of pressure if euthanasia is legalised. To save medical resources, doctors will feel free to the end lives of those who are in the marginalised group. The idea that euthanasia is happening anyway and that it is better to legalise and regulate, will always be discouraged. In the name of giving freedom and autonomy in the one hand, it also subscribes to the idea that some people are less worthy to live at the same time.