PHI 208 Ethics and Moral Reasoning
End of Life Choices
Introduction
The definition of unbearable suffering has always been open to interpretation. In Netherlands, the Supreme Court defined suffering as both physical and psychological. In Belgium, the legislation pointed out that if a patient is seeking euthanasia, they must be in a hopeless medical condition and they are now suffering physically and psychologically. Most of the time, the people who want to die also suffer from extreme depression. This is one of the flaws when legislation will allow non-terminal patients the right to die rather than to be treated, because people who suffer from depression can be covered by the law (The Life Resources Charitable Trust, n.d.). For this reason, the policies regarding euthanasia or assisted suicide should be legalized with strict guidelines. This should always include a written consent before taking such step (Pereira, 2011). To be able to support this argument, deontological ethical theory ethics will be used. In this theory, it is believed that morality that is based on one’s duty is doing one’s duty and this will reflect what the doctors think is right, continue the patient’s suffering or not.
Theory Explanation
Deontological ethics or deontology is the ethical position which judge morality of the action based on the action’s obedience to the rules. The theory believes that people are bound by their duties and it is also believed that actions are more important that the consequences. For the people following this theory, they follow four universal rules: it is wrong to kill innocent people, it is wrong to steal, it is wrong to tell lies and it is important to keep promises. The core of the theory lies on the value of every human being. The focus of the theory is to give equal respect to all human beings. It also provides the basis for human rights and it focuses on the interest of the single person even if he or she is at odds with the interest of a larger group.
In contrast with this theory is the theory of virtue ethics. This theory believes that when someone is in need, he or she should be helped. When a person chooses to help, it will not only benefit the person who received his help but it will also benefit him by gaining the virtues he needs to have a full life (Hursthouse, 2012). In the issue of euthanasia for non-terminal patients, there will be cases that doctors should be able to know the extent of suffering a condition can bring to them and with this theory; they will be able to empathize with them. This is clearly different with the deontological beliefs since it is the doctor’s duty which is put first before his or her feelings towards his patient.
Application
According to most followers of deontological ethics, the killing of innocent people is not allowed. Some kinds of active killing can also be morally accepted like permitting euthanasia, so that the pain the patient is feeling will be killed, even if it may kill the patient in the process provided, there is no other way for the doctor to kill the pain (Tännsjö & Claëson, 2005, p. 690). Another argument ethicists use to support euthanasia is by stating the fact that people do not deserve to live a life filled with agony. It is also believed that each person has the right to be happy and the theory suggests that people always try to attain happiness along with their moral worth. The advocated of euthanasia for non-terminal illnesses sees this as an opportunity to die with dignity and to give a person the right to choose if he or she wants to live in pain or not.
Furthermore, the theory claims that the capacity of a person to exercise their rationality and reason is what makes their human existence meaningful. Although people who are suffering from pain may not be considered to have the capacity to distinguish right from wrong, they are also deprived of the things which make their life desirable. Therefore, they no longer have the ability to use their rationality to grow as an individual; instead, their mental and physical processes are now directed to enduring their pain. They now feel that they are becoming more like animals that are now struggling for survival and have been stripped of their dignity to live which is why many of them choose to die with their dignity intact. To force a person to continue to live is such a way is considered to be treating them as less than human and it also denies them the consideration that would give an animal placed in a similar circumstance.
For certain medical conditions where patients are bed ridden, or suffer from a painful injury, it is important to give them the right to end their life. Pain may be subjective but the tolerance of pain is also different from each person. There will be people who will not be able to walk or interact with others and live a life of pain, during these instances; it may be immoral to let these people suffer more. This is what the theory tries to argue. When a patient has no guarantee that he or she will have a normal life, what would be their purpose in this world? People do not deserve to live in pain.
Opposing Reason
The theory of deontological ethics’ main focus is the value of human rights and human life. However, man does not live alone, so when people decide something for themselves; it can also affect other people. The World Federation of Right to Die Societies, which is an international non-government organization which aims to provide people with the right to choose to live and die, firmly believes that everyone has the right to die in peace and with dignity. They refer not only to people who suffer from a terminal disease but also those who are suffering from an incurable condition. These diseases like HIV, arthritis and mental disorders like bipolar disease could cause so much pain in an individual. However, the pain and symptoms can be managed and people can still be able to live a normal life. The legalization of euthanasia can harm society. It corrupts the sole purpose of medicine and it does not promote prevention of suicides. It opens the door to the fall of high moral standards for the physicians and other health care providers (Smith, 2006). Aside from that, there are different technology and innovations done to help physicians provide a more comfortable for their patients who have incurable diseases.
Conclusion
There are tons of medical conditions that could be a burden for people who have them. Most people may say that the value of life is important, may not understand how it is to live in pain. For many of these patients, they would choose to die rather than live a life full of suffering. Aside from that, they don’t want to be a burden to the family members who felt entitled to take care of them. With the rising medical costs, some of these illnesses are not even covered by their insurance. Being disabled or handicapped can be a burden not only for the patient but also for their loved ones. Not being able to live normally can damage the dignity of the patient and letting them continue to live miserably is considered to be inhuman. When there is no guarantee that they can go back or begin a normal life, they would lose their sense of purpose and will develop mental problems like depression. That is why it is important to give them the freedom to choose to be free from their suffering. Euthanasia will give them the chance to die without pain and with dignity.
References
Hursthouse, R. (2012). Virtue Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/#Bib
Pereira, J. (2011). Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls. Current Oncology, 18(2). doi:10.3747/co.v18i2.883
Smith, W. J. (2006, October 17). Euthanasia Not About Terminal Illness Despite Advocates' Claims. Retrieved from http://www.discovery.org/a/3771
The Life Resources Charitable Trust. (n.d.). Non-terminal Cases. Retrieved from http://www.life.org.nz/euthanasia/euthanasiaethicalkeyissues/non-terminal-cases/
Tännsjö, T., & Claëson, K. (2005). Taking the Final Step: Changing the Law on Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide. British Medical Journal, 331(7518), 689–691. doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7518.689
