VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA AND ITS JUSTIFICATIONS.
Can death be a more honest and right choice than life?
Imagine a situation where a patient is dying of incurable throat cancer and is in extreme agony that can no longer be adequately relieved. Even if the current treatment is continued, he would die within a few days, but he does not want to live for those days because the pain is excruciating. As a result, he asks the doctor to end his life, and his family supports the request. The term 'euthanasia' is used to describe such a situation.
When we discuss morals, we frequently refer to the ideal methods to live one's life or to live happily. However, this isn't always the case. We address death from time to time. When should someone be kept alive and when should they be allowed to die? These are big questions, and while it's not the most fun ethical argument, it's important, especially in the healthcare profession. Medical workers have a particular set of moral responsibilities to their patients, most of which revolve around 'not harming them.' So, can it be detrimental to keep someone alive when they are in immense pain and their sickness is undoubtedly incurable? That is the debate moral philosophers and medical professionals are faced with. It may not be the most pleasant subject, but avoiding it is pointless.
Euthanasia, sometimes known as mercy killing, is the act or practice of putting to death people who are suffering from a terrible and incurable sickness or a physically incapacitating disorder without pain, or allowing them to die by delaying treatment or removing artificial life-support systems. Because most legal systems do not have a specific provision for it, it is commonly seen as either suicide (if carried out by the patient) or murder (if performed by another).
The perception that euthanasia is morally right is traceable to Socrates, Plato, and the Stoics. It is condemned by traditional Christian doctrine, primarily because it is regarded to contravene the Ten Commandments' prohibition on murder and suicide. The organized motion for the legalization of euthanasia started in England in 1935, when C. Killick Millard formed the Voluntary Euthanasia Legalization Society (later named the Euthanasia Society). The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to legalize euthanasia in 2001 and 2002, respectively. The Supreme Court of South Korea acknowledged a "right to die with dignity" in 2009 when it granted the family of a brain-dead woman's request to have her life-support systems removed.
Making a case for voluntary euthanasia.
Before I commence with arguments in support of voluntary euthanasia, there are some significant disparities that I can make between types of euthanasia. Firstly, there is voluntary euthanasia, which occurs when a patient expresses his or her desire to die. An example of this type of euthanasia is the above-imagined situation of a patient dying of incurable throat cancer who requests that his life be ended by his doctor. Secondly, there is involuntary euthanasia, which occurs when a patient expresses a desire to live but is denied. (Think about the scenario described above, but with a small twist.) The patient in this case did not beg the doctor to end his life; instead, he opted to live. Regardless, euthanasia is carried out due to his dreadful condition. In many circumstances, but not all, this is considered as same as murder. Thirdly, there is non-voluntary euthanasia, which occurs when a patient is unconscious or unable to voice their wishes. In certain cases, relatives, doctors, or the court may make the choice. The patient may be too ill to the point that he is unable to communicate.
However, voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia can be further subdivided into active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia implies killing a patient using active means, such as administering a lethal dose of a medicine. Passive euthanasia is the deliberate removal of artificial life support, such as a ventilator or feeding tube, from a patient.
I'm going to focus entirely on the morality of voluntary euthanasia in this article. As someone who passionately believes in the concept of 'freedom,' I believe that people should be able to choose how they want to live their lives and how they want to end them. Thus I am a great believer in voluntary euthanasia. In offering reasons in favour of this perspective, I will use a real-life example to clarify my points regarding why voluntary euthanasia is morally permissible.
A Real-life Scenario.
After a lifetime of cigar smoking, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), the famed psychologist, was diagnosed with mouth cancer. Freud's health fluctuated in his final years, but in early 1939, a big swelling appeared in the back of his mouth, and he had no more good days. Freud's cancer was aggressive and inoperable, and he had heart trouble as well. As his bones disintegrated, they released a horrible odour that drove his beloved dog away. To keep flies away, mosquito netting had to be stretched over his bed. Freud took his friend and personal physician, Max Schur, by the hand on September 21, at the age of 83, and remarked, "My dear Schur, I'm sure you recall our first conversation. You pledged not to abandon me when the time came. It's now nothing but torture that makes no sense." Forty decades prior, Freud had written, "What has the individual come to... if one no longer dares to disclose that it is this or that man's turn to die?" Dr. Schur stated that he understood Freud's demand. He injected Freud with a drug to end his life. Dr. Schur wrote, "He quickly felt relief and slipped into a peaceful sleep."
Human life is a gift from God, according to monotheism, and only God has the authority to end it. The early Church condemned all forms of killing, believing that Jesus' teachings allowed no exceptions. Fairly late, the Church acknowledged some exceptions, such as capital punishment and killing in war. Suicide and euthanasia, however, remained prohibited. To sum up the church's doctrine, theologians constructed the rule: the intentional killing of innocent human beings is always wrong. This dogma has influenced Western perceptions toward the morality of killing more than any other. As a result, even though Max Schur acted with good intentions, we may be hesitant to forgive him. However, looking at it from a utilitarian standpoint, I believe the patient's happiness and unhappiness should be taken into account heavily. Sigmund Freud was the individual whose happiness was most at risk. If Freud had lived longer, he would have been in tremendous agony (which would equate to unhappiness), and he would have died regardless. Dr. Schur's act of euthanasia, on the other hand, alleviated Freud's anguish and enabled him to be happy.
I'm not advocating for an atheistic or anti-religious stance in any manner. However, I believe that if a religious person perceived God as beneficent, he or she would be willing to endorse the utilitarian viewpoint. Because, if we consider God to be compassionate and caring, I don't believe Dr. Schur's action in putting an end to Freud's suffering would irritate Him. Schur assisted Freud in putting an end to his misery in the manner Freud desired. He was only defending a person's right to make their own decisions, and as a result, no external party was hurt or injured. If we have laws preventing voluntary euthanasia and considering it unlawful in democratic countries, I believe the concept of 'freedom' should be questioned. Regulations forbidding voluntary euthanasia are unjustified restrictions on people's freedom to exercise control over their lives. If one's right to life is unalienable, then one's right to choose how to end one's life should be as well (especially terminally ill people). People should have the freedom to die if they have the right to live, which is a form of human autonomy.
Keeping people alive who are critically ill and want to die makes little or no sense, especially if their illness is incurable. As Sigmund Freud put it, "it is now nothing but torture and it makes no sense." Keeping them against their will is equal to showing no sympathy or compassion for their plight. Allowing them to commit euthanasia would not only grant them their wish, but it would equally ease their pain and allow them to die with dignity. What is the reason to keep them alive when they want the opposite? What is the point of prolonging their death and not relieving their suffering when they are certain to die anyway? Dr. Schur's action was not to infringe on Freud's right to life, but rather to substitute a painful death for a painless one. Therefore, his action is morally justified.
Reference list:
Milton A. Gonsalves, Austin Fagothey-Right & Reason: Ethics In Theory And Practice (ninth education 1963)
Steven M. Cahn, Peter Markie- Ethics History, Theory and Contemporary Issues (Oxford University Press, 1998).
James Rachels- The Elements of Moral Philosophy (eighth education, 1969).
Nigel Warburton- Philosophy The Basics (fifth edition, 2013).
https://www.britannica.com/topic/euthanasia