Euthanasia

When a person commits an act of euthanasia he brings about the death of another person because he believes that the latter's present existence is so bad that she would be better off dead. The motive of the person who commits an act of euthanasia is to benefit the one whose death is brought about. Or does it? Is mercy killing morally permissible at all?

There are two different cases we look at here, namely voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is the case whereby a clearly competent patient makes a voluntary and enduring request to be helped to die. Involuntary euthanasia, on the other hand, is whereby a personЎЇs life is brought to an end though he or she is no longer competent to make a decision of whether or not he or she wants to be euthanatized. In this case, a proxy makes the choice for her.

Mercy killing is the ending of a personЎЇs life such that he or she does not have to suffer in pain for the rest of his or her life. But does he or she have a right to death? Or does he or she really want to die?

There are both sides of the argument. Yes and no. But why yes? The dignity of the patient has to be preserved in such a way that he dies a dignified death. He would not want to be suffering on a life support machine, lying motionless like a living dead. Why not preserve the memories of those days when he was alive and well? His life had become burdensome as a result of torturing and lingering pain. The objective of euthanasia is to be able to allow the patient by human aided means to die comfortably.

While both good palliative care and hospice care make important contributions to the care of the dying, neither is a panacea. To get the best palliative care for an individual involves trial and error with some consequent suffering in the process. But the point of significance is that not everyone wishes to avail themselves of either palliative care or hospice care. Not everyone who is dying is suffering because of the pain occasioned by their illness in this way. Euthanasia focuses on the patientЎЇs choice. Some patients just do not want to depend on others or machinery to live the rest of their life, as it would be quite meaningless if they had nothing in the world worth living for. Everyone has a right to self-dignity and society respects his choice. To choose to die is not manЎЇs innate nature. He only does so when he finds himself a burden to society and fears loneliness and alienation. With painkillers and the absence of such prevalent preconditions would he then prefer to live. It is thus the responsibility of society to ensure that he leaves the world with company at his bedside; as a happy man. This is the results obtained from research done on many patients.

Furthermore, his death would greatly impact the people around him. Would this be against the greatest happiness principle then? If this is so, there should be restriction on the doctorЎЇs part, as the act of euthanasia incriminates them. Doctors are to preserve lives, not to destroy them. Doctors abide by the Hippocratic Oath, and are allowed to practice their professions only if they do so. It is definitely against the oath to kill patients, no matter how much they gain from it. As the law of deontology states, there will be by no means a moral act, if happiness is gained through the death of a fellow human.

But with regard to voluntary euthanasia, we must notice that a request to die may not simply reflect an enduring desire to die. We can never be justified in believing that someoneЎЇs request to die reflects a settled preference for death. This issue when discussed on different occasions would achieve different answers. So how sure are we in believing that it is her wish to die? A person in that state may be going through a state of depression such that she is not able to think clearly and rationally about the alternatives and thus cannot be granted the assumption that she has the capacity to give genuinely voluntary consent to be put to death.

Involuntary euthanasia also has its cons which very much outweigh the pros. It is not just ending the suffering of the patient, this also concerns her life. In this case whereby a proxy makes the choice for her whether or not to die, complications may occur. Scams have been reported that in one case, the proxy stood to get a share of the money that would be willed to the patientЎЇs sister upon the death of the patient. The proxy thus wanted to euthanatize her in order to get her money. But does she really want to end her life? Such scandals arise from the legalization of involuntary euthanasia.

We have also seen from history how euthanasia, once legally permitted, may cause society to set foot on the slippery slope leading to eugenics during HitlerЎЇs reign. Here, some argue that the patient in question can no longer, or have very little chances to contribute to society. Since his existence does not benefit society, why waste resources on him instead of using them on other patients? So all comatose patients should be put to death. All mentally ill patients, all disabled patients, and all beggars on the streets, and eventually all impure blood types in society. This is for the benefit of society isnЎЇt it? Is there any difference from HitlerЎЇs reign? We, as human beings, should treasure the sanctity of human life as it is precious. This is such that no human is allowed to take another humanЎЇs life for his own benefit. Humans as a whole, regardless of who they are, should be respected as an ends in itself and not a means to achieve an ends. We must put ourselves in the shoes of the person whose life is taken. Was it his wish to end his life for the sake of society? Does anyone have a right to take his life for the supposed greater good? No, his life is his and no one else owns it. Only he has the right to his life. No one should be given the right to take anotherЎЇs life, regardless of the benefits from the death.

Another argument is that of pro-life over pro-choice. We are granted a right to life at the moment we are conceived. The right to eat, breathe and all other actions stem from this right to life. Without the right to life, we would have no rights for our actions, much less to make our own choices. The right to choice too stems from the right to life. Thus proven, the right to life has priority over the right to oneЎЇs own choice.