It is well-known that “assisted suicide and euthanasia have long been contentious issues worldwide» (Barbuzzi 16). Euthanasia is defined as the deliberate, intentional and active termination of the patient’s life in cases when death will benefit this patient (Gregory 397); this method is usually applicable for the patients with incurable diseases and in need of relief of the suffering caused by the disease. Moreover, both passive and active euthanasia methods are possible, though both evoke ethical and moral concerns and trigger debates on the subject of euthanasia legalization. Although physician-assisted suicide and active euthanasia have been legally permitted in Holland since 2001 (Boer 226), it is illegal in many countries such as, for example, UK, to assist a patient in suicide. Thereby, the fundamental moral questions underlying the debate are whether a terminally ill individual should be allowed to terminate their life and who is entitled to deny the patient’s right to end their suffering upon their own consent. The controversies surrounding the topic divided public into strong proponents of the patient’s right to dispose of their life and those against this practice, offering their arguments as well. In this paper, three arguments for the conclusion that euthanasia is morally permissible will be explained, evaluated and criticized.
The first argument for euthanasia is the so-called autonomy argument: “supporters [of this argument] argue that people who have an incurable, degenerative, disabling or debilitating condition should be allowed to die in dignity” (Math & Chaturvedi 900). The core of this assertion lies in the generally accepted framework of basic human rights, where the right to control one’s own human body and life is one of the most important rights. As the human being should be as much freedom as possible, s/he is to be given the right to decide on whether, when and how to die. Moreover, as the human being has the right to protect their dignity, euthanasia is an acceptable solution for those whose heath condition is indignifying, burdening for family members and causing shame and suffering.
The argument could be presented in the premise-coclusion form suitable for analysis. Premise 1 here is: A human being has the entrenched right to dispose of their life and bodies. Premise two is: Death is an inseparable part of life and affects the individual themselves. The Conclusion is: Therefore, all individuals have the right to decide upon their death. Given the premise-conclusion presentation, the argument could be interpreted as deductive, for it illustrates the individual’s specific right to decide upon their death as a part of the broader human rights framework which is primarily based on the right to control one’s own body and life.
Evaluating the argument from the moral and human rights perspective, one could state that the premises justifying the conclusion are rather plausible and relevant. Indeed, if a person has the irrevocable right to control their life, then the person also has the right to decide on when and how it should be terminated, especially when further life threatens their dignity or psychological wellbeing. Even more, it is hard to deny the fact that death is actually a part of life.
Moving on to critique of the first argument, one would inevitably focus on proving weakness of the argument as a whole. The opponents of euthanasia, especially those with strong religious views, would definitely state that the argument is invalid, because decisions on birth and death are under God’s control, while voluntary termination of one’s life is the violation of the natural course of events and the sanctity of life. The main secular objection to this argument and especially to the second premise is that euthanasia as death affects not just the individual, but also people surrounding them including family, healthcare professionals and friends. In other words, whatever the rights possessed by the human being are, they are always limited by obligations, and her the obligations is projected onto protecting other people from unfavorable consequences of the individual’s voluntary death.
The second argument in favor of the discussed practice is that stressing the healthcare professionals’ ethical obligation to do their best to relief the patients’ condition and chose treatment options that are the best for them. As Chinweze (23) states, “the cases of unbearable pain and suffering” are convincing reasons for euthanasia», for “the pain of dying is sometimes uncontrollable and [] a quick merciful death through the aid of a physician is morally justified in such circumstance”. That is, while the healthcare workers are morally and professionally obliged to heal and relief pain of their patients, relieving unbearable pain caused by terminal health conditions is a morally justified decision, for it allows the suffering patient to pass away easily and smoothly in cases when there are no chances for recovery.
Splitting the argument into premises and conclusion, one gets the following: Premise 1 – Healthcare professionals are morally obliged to relieve patients’ suffering and do what is the best option for them; Premise 2 – In some cases such as terminal diseases causing pain and suffering termination of life may be the best possible solution for the healthcare professional to choose; Conclusion – Thus, euthanasia, when it is intended to relieve suffering, does not violate medical ethics. The connection between two premises and the conclusion of the argument shows that the argument is deductive in its nature, for conclusion on permissibility of euthanasia is derived from the assertion about general obligation of the healthcare professionals to do what is best for their patients and relieve suffering. While euthanasia is generally aimed at termination of suffering it is stated to be ethically permissible for healthcare professionals.
Evaluating the argument, one could conclude that the premises are convincing in justifying the conclusion (at least, from the logical perspective): the general moral obligation of the doctors really covers relieving of the patients’ suffering, and unless there are clarifying details, euthanasia can be listed as a way to relieve suffering and pain.
However, the argument and particularly its second premise might be critiqued by the opponents of euthanasia. Validity of this argument can be challenged by a practical counterargument: euthanasia is unlikely to be the best pain-relieving option is case if appropriate palliative care can be provided for the patient. That is, healthcare professionals fulfill their pain-relieving function via a better option that can both relieve suffering and preserve the patient’s life (allowing to avoid ‘therapeutic’ killing) – competent choice of special pain-relieving drugs and procedures. On the other hand, taking emotional wellbeing of the patient into account, the argument could be reconstructed with inclusion of psychological aspect: palliative care cannot relieve psychological and emotional pain of the patient counting days till their death.
The third argument for euthanasia is, surprisingly, economic: palliative care is objectively not worth the money spent on it both by the government and by the patients’ families, for it destroys the quality of life of the patients (Morris). That is, the life of the terminally ill person can be prolonged for a rather insufficient period of time such as, for example, an extra month, while the cost often exceeds financial assets of the patient’s family. At the same time, abundance of unpleasant, traumatic and unnecessary procedures diminishes the quality of life and literally deprives the patient of pleasure of living through these extra days. Moreover, demand for funding in palliative care takes away the fifth part of Medicare funding in America, which goes to only 5% of beneficiaries in palliative care, whereas other sectors of healthcare dealing with the patients who can actually be treated and saved receive less funding. Thus, the present argument purports that euthanasia is economically beneficial and can save both the families’ financial assets, the patients’ emotional stability and the government’s money, which can be spent on healthcare sectors that deal with patients that can be cured.
The premise-conclusion structure here is the following: Premise 1 – Palliative care is often more expensive than regular healthcare, though it brings insufficient prolongation of the patient’s life; Premise 2 – The quality of life during palliative care is often destroyed to the unbearable and depressing extent; Premise 3 – Euthanasia is more cost-efficient both for the government and for the patients’ families; Conclusion – Thuswise, euthanasia makes sense economically and can save money for other sectors of healthcare. The present argument is inductive in its nature, for it shows how narrow premises accumulate to generate a conclusion proving efficiency of euthanasia. In this premise-conclusion structure, three premises are collected and synthesized, which makes possible the conclusion about euthanasia’s cost-efficiency and shows that unnecessary palliative care could be replaced by euthanasia in many cases.
Evaluating the argument, it is necessary to mention that all the premises are quite plausible, for they are based on the large body of qualitative and statistical data that can be found both in governmental reports and in specific demographic and empirical studies. That is, the conclusion derived from these premises is justified.
The critique of this argument can be rooted in two perspectives: religious and secular. Viewing the argument from the former perspective, it is possible to critique the first premise as invalid, for there is a principle stating every life to be sacred. However, the first premise implies that lives of terminally ill patients may be neglected due to high costs. On the other hand, the second premise might be impaired by selective judgment fallacy and weak from the secular perspective, because the situational aspect should be considered: there is no guarantee that all terminally ill patients suffer from the care itself and would prefer death to care. That is why, as long as there are at least some patients benefiting from palliative care, euthanasia is not the best option even despite its cost-efficiency.
The arguments presented in the essay are only a small part of arguments deployed in the euthanasia debate both for and against this assisted suicide. While the listed arguments in favor of euthanasia are quite convincing in terms of logic and morality, there are also equally strong objections to these arguments descending both from religious and from secular viewpoints. Thereby, the conclusion on the issue is rather blurred and is highly dependent of a variety of situational aspects such as the patient’s health condition, costs, availability of proper care and many others. This means that analysis of arguments related to such a controversial topic reveals various ambiguities and fallacies in reasoning, both in the arguments for and in the arguments against, which makes resorting to the ‘black-or-white’
Works Cited
Barbuzzi, Miranda. "Who Owns The Right To Die? An Argument About The Legal Status Of Euthanasia And Assisted Suicide In Canada." Penn Bioethics Journal 10.1 (2014): 16-20. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.
Boer, Theo A. "After The Slippery Slope: Dutch Experiences On Regulating Active Euthanasia." Journal Of The Society Of Christian Ethics 23.2 (2003): 225-242. MEDLINE. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.
Chinweze, Madu Benedict. Euthanasia: A critical Analysis of the Physician’s Role. Master’s Thesis, Centrum för tillämpad etik Linköpings Universitet, 2005. Web. April 15, 2016. < http://www.diva-portal.se/smash/get/diva2:20257/FULLTEXT01.pdf>
Gregory, DR. "Euthanasia, Ethics And Public Policy: An Argument Against Legislation." Journal Of Legal Medicine 24.3 (2003): 395-405. Social Sciences Citation Index. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.
Math, Suresh Bada, and Santosh K. Chaturvedi. “Euthanasia: Right to Life vs Right to Die.” The Indian Journal of Medical Research 136.6 (2012): 899–902.
Morris M. “10 Arguments For Legalizing Euthanasia”, Litverse (September 12, 2013). Web. April 15, 2016. < http://listverse.com/2013/09/12/10-arguments-for-legalising-euthanasia/>
