The theme of death lies on the border between philosophy, medicine and law. Medicine has always been focused on the empirical side of the problem of death, the philosophy is looking for the meaning of it, and the law mainly determines the legal consequences following death. Ethics, philosophy and law are united and focused on the issue of euthanasia. Supporters of the euthanasia identify it with the concept of a pleasant and easy death; the opponents − with the murder. From the utilitarian point of view euthanasia should be accepted because it reduces suffering and serves to increase the common good; but at the same time it destructs the main purpose of medicine – to struggle for human life.
Utilitarianism is one of the ways to justify morality that sees morality as a means to achieve happiness. The most obvious expression of utilitarianism can be found in the principle of usefulness that was explained by Jeremy Bentham (1870). According to this principle, moral activity is justified if it leads to the highest happiness for the greatest number of people. In utilitarianism we are talking about general happiness, not only about happiness of a particular individual. It is important to note that utilitarianism proclaims not only meeting the needs in material goods, but also meeting the higher needs (need for public recognition, self-esteem, etc.). Modern utilitarianism is divided into two approaches: utilitarianism of the action that considers an assessment of each performed action in a particular situation; this approach fundamentally does not prohibit actions that can increase happiness even if they violate the commonly accepted rules (e.g. theft, murder, etc.) because there are different situations and different people; and the utilitarianism of the rule that makes an assessment of public rules that contribute or do not contribute to increasing the common good.
Based on the utilitarian approach there can be found many arguments in support of euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is based on the fundamental human right − the right to die if death is the only relief from suffering. This position supports euthanasia at least at the level of refusal from medical treatment and argues that it is aimed at elimination of intolerable pain. If the pain persists than assisting a patient who is asking for an ‘easy death’ can be considered as humane and compassionate; apart from that it recognizes the right of the patient to determine the time of his own death (Singer, 2003). Another argument in support of euthanasia may be called altruistic: it is the wish of a seriously ill person not to become a burden for his relatives and other people who are close to him. This argument is closely linked to the principle of right to die with dignity, although it is clearly dominated by selfish motives. One more argument is a demographic argument. Admissibility of euthanasia is associated with a significant aging of the population, the increasing number of disabled elderly whose medical treatment and care involves a series of economic and social problems.
One of the many arguments against euthanasia is that it destructs the social mission and moral grounds of medicine – the struggle for human life. In some of these cases, doctors have to continue to struggle for life, even against the request of the patient’s relatives to stop further treatment. In practice, requests for euthanasia rarely come from the patients themselves; most of the time their relatives are asking for it. It should be noted that the moral and ethical aspects of such requests are complex. As a rule, relatives’ requests are based on humane feelings: pity, compassion for the sick, and the desire to reduce the suffering of the loved one. However, there may be a number of other reasons, so the doctor must politely but firmly reject such requests. Firstly, the family cannot understand the possibilities of medicine to cure the patient at his current state. Secondly, such a request is not legitimate from a legal point of view. Apart from that, the term ‘incurable’ cannot be considered a static concept; it depends on the resources and opportunities available. In addition, it is widely known how great the possibility of error is when doctors make their forecasts.
The issue of euthanasia has been discussed for many years and causes a lot of opposing views, doubts and theories; it is one of the most difficult questions of medical ethics. The supporters of euthanasia argue that a civilized society must allow people to leave the life with dignity and without pain and allow other people to help to pass away to those who are terminally ill and cannot do it themselves. From the utilitarian perspective euthanasia is acceptable since it reduces suffering of the patient, relieves the relatives from the burden to take care of the patient for many years, and even improves the demographic situation. On the other hand, if euthanasia is allowed everywhere, there will be no need in the invention of new drugs for the treatment of incurable diseases; the value and sacredness of life will be lost.
References:
Bentham, J. (1780). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Retrieved from: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/authors/bentham
Singer, P. (2003). Voluntary euthanasia: A utilitarian perspective. Bioethics, 17 (5/6), 526-541. Retrieved from the EBSCOhost database
