On Euthanasia

[Mafoo]

A Defense of Euthanasia
The term Euthanasia is understood to mean the ending of a person’s life to prevent further pain and or suffering. “…euthanasia comes from the Greek words "eu” and “thanatos” which combined means ‘well death’ or ‘dying well’”. This paper will support Euthanasia as an acceptable practice because it relieves pain and suffering for the person seeking death, and affirms their autonomy. Furthermore I will examine utilitarian thinking to confirm the morality of Euthanasia.

Everyone has seen mercy killing portrayed in the media through movies about war and conflict. Usually, in these depictions, a wounded soldier will request that an ally relieve his suffering and quicken the process of dying by killing him. Shocking as it may seem, these types of situations are occurring in hospital rooms, nursing homes, and even in private residences. The idea of euthanasia is not a new concept. The Hippocratic Oath, which all doctors must take before practicing medicine, was written between 400 B.C. and 300 B.C. The oath declares that the doctor will not prescribe deadly drugs for any reason or for any person. This seems to state that the Greeks were against euthanasia, but that was not the case. The Greeks were known to be tolerant of suicide for cases where no relief could be provided for a person who was in great pain or suffering. Today, about two thousand years later, people are still practicing euthanasia. In Holland, euthanasia has been tolerated since 1973 when a Dutch doctor helped to end her dying mother’s life. The doctor received only a suspended license, and since then legislation has been passed to regulate the process. These regulations include consulting multiple physicians and keeping details records of cases. In the U.S., the state of Oregon has The Death with Dignity Act which allows people to request euthanasia.

Euthanasia gives people the option to end their lives. Some people are uncomfortable with this because they say, “the right to decide when a person dies belongs to God.” I argue that these people are wrong. Let me ask, why would god want someone to live with extreme pain? Shouldn’t people be allowed to end their lives to escape unbearable suffering? Even if a person is deeply depressed and not feeling physical pain, the anguish they experience from day to day borders on self torture. Pain is a subjective experience. This means that if the only pain you’ve ever experienced was a paper cut, then that paper cut would be equally as painful to you as would a stab wound to a person who has known no other pain. Yes, opponents can argue that depression can be treated, but I can weaken their argument by comparing the situation of a person wishing to die due to extreme depression with that of a person who chooses to sign a “Do Not Resuscitate” order. Both of these people could possibly, I emphasize possibly, be treated of their ailments and go on to live long lives, but the point is that the decision should be left to the individual. Why should your religion have anything to do with my choice to end my life? Obviously this is a large flaw in the “Life belongs to God” argument.

I can go further and talk about the way that people live their lives. Many people enjoy fast food, cigarettes, alcohol and other substances that are known to be “unhealthy”. How is smoking a cigarette any different than asking to be euthanized? Cigarettes are known to shorten the smoker’s life span due to a myriad of cardiac and respiratory diseases; yet, no one will be prohibited that daily pack of smokes. What is the problem, then, with euthanasia? I feel it is the speed of dying, and the element of controlling death that many people have a hard time swallowing. Euthanasia restores autonomy to people who can no longer function without an aide or nurse. By giving these patients the choice to die our society affirms the fact that these people are autonomous human beings in control of their own affairs.

A utilitarian would argue that euthanasia brings about the most happiness for everyone involved. Why should the patient and their family be forced to endure long term suffering and financial burdens when there is a better solution? Suffering can be minimized by allowing everyone the chance to be there for the person as they pass in a peaceful sleep. Further strengthening this argument is the financial aspect of euthanasia. Currently there is a shortage of healthcare facilities and practitioners. Why should further strain be put on the medical system to save people who simply do not want to be saved? Doctors could minimize the amount of time they, in essence, waste dealing with terminally ill patients who seek death as an escape from pain and suffering. In addition to minimizing hospital spending on these patients, families would be freed from expensive medical costs, and possible emotional damage resulting from suicide attempts by family members. Bills from end of life treatments (life support machines etc.) can be extremely expensive, in some cases reaching to the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Euthanasia, on the other hand, is only as expensive as the medication that will be used to extinguish the life. Commonly the medication is around 40 dollars, and takes the form of overdosing on painkillers or barbiturates. The result is sedation followed by loss of consciousness leading to a peaceful death.

Even in cases where pain and suffering are not a factor people should be able to seek out the means to end their lives if they so choose. The support that I use for this way of thinking is as follows. No one on the earth chose to be brought into being; the choice was made by our parents to conceive a child, and we are the product of that choice. Once brought into life we are endowed with life and the ability to sense, judge, and make decisions. Does it not follow then that we should have the choice to end our lives? I will illustrate the situation with an analogy. Imagine yourself riding around on a train. You have no destination to speak of, but the train stops from time to time allowing you the opportunity to disembark. Suppose the train stops and you, for whatever reason, find yourself outside of the rail car as the doors close and the train slides away down the tracks. Are you stuck there at whatever destination you ended up at? Or do you have the choice to get on the next train? The theme I am trying to illustrate is that people don’t have any choices until they come into being alive (getting off the train). Once you live, you find yourself in a world full of choices. Suppose that once you step off the train every second of your existence on the train platform is filled with unbearable suffering. Would you not, if given the choice, get back on the train? I believe we all would. The nature of all living things is to avoid suffering while maximizing pleasure, so it follows that anyone in the aforementioned situation would get back on the train. The train is a metaphor for the passage between life and death. When you get off the train it symbolizes birth into the world of experience, and consequently pain. Choosing to end your suffering and getting back on the train would represent the choice to be euthanized.

I believe that Mill would agree with my stance regarding euthanasia. Mill’s utilitarianism states, “It operates from the general rule that if any action increases overall good, then it is right. The corollary to this is that if any proposed direct moral rule, when generally acted from, increases overall good, then it is a correct direct moral rule.” With respect to euthanasia this rule states that the action is a correct moral rule. I have already examined the benefits of the practice, but now I will defend against some of the opposing stances.

[Mafoo]

Many people argue that if euthanasia were legal, people may abuse the practice; or that people may request euthanasia for the wrong reasons. This argument can be weakened by examining what is meant by “wrong reasons”. Opponents argue that if euthanasia were legal people would seek it to end mild suffering or treatable conditions such as depression. I argue that even mild suffering is enough reason for someone to end their life. As I mentioned before, pain is subjective, therefore it is up to no one but the agent themselves to decide what justifies seeking euthanasia. Even if the patient could be treated for the pain or depression, what is the point of keeping someone alive who wishes that they were dead? Isn’t denying someone the right to control their life (or death) more problematic than allowing that control? When someone has lost the will to live continuation of life is a form of torture. The person who seeks death but is denied it simply because they don’t have the “right reasons” is in essence captive in their mortality. How is keeping someone locked in a cell any different than keeping someone alive who wishes to be dead? The answer is that there is no difference; both people have lost their autonomy. The restoration of autonomy, I argue, is the fundamental aspect of the argument for euthanasia. Removing their autonomy promotes nothing but pain and frustrations for the agent, and under utilitarianism: that action, therefore, cannot be a moral action.

When considering all of the aforementioned evidence, it is hard to disagree with my pro euthanasia stance. It is enough to say that people who wish to die should not be forced to prolong their lives because this would constitute a type of imprisonment in their mortal body. All individuals enter the world and gain autonomy as a consequence of being alive. Trying to remove one’s autonomy is not a moral action. Religion should not come into play when discussing whether or not euthanasia should be available because people hold varying beliefs, and to say that one set of beliefs overrides another is ludicrous. Religion relies on blind faith therefore policies associated with religion tend to miss the bigger picture. We simply cannot remove one person’s rights because their actions conflict with the beliefs of others. Euthanasia is a moral practice because it affirms our autonomy, relieves suffering, and because euthanasia promotes more good for more people than allowing people to suffer long drawn out deaths.

written for a moral ethics philo term paper, i got an A

P.S.- the reason i posted this is because since Matthew passed ive thinking alot about his quote on not being able to kill energy- "death's the next logical progression...ask a baby if he was scared to be born, you have no choice in the matter.....but death is not something to fear...you actually cannot destroy energy, therefore, you can't really die off.....your energy still lingers"- M.Munari
i think the metaphor with the train is what reminded me of this paper. i wrote it in march of this year (08)

[Smaerd]

Wow, interesting facts about the youths in Asia I never heard before. I can see why you got an A, hahaha.

R.I.P. Mathew Munari.

[msicidron]

youths in asia all need to die. . .you know...so as to prevent them from reproducing