Is Euthanasia OR Physician-Assisted Suicide Better than leading Unhappy Life as a Burden?
This is an ethical question that invokes a serosae of responses in order to bets handle it. While pain has been in existence since the traditional times, the question whether euthanasia is an ideal ethical method for ending severe pain to a patient remains a subject of discussion. Just like proponents have different theoretical viewpoints to assert the validity of euthanasia; it is the same way that opponents question the credibility of this process in the modern ethical realms. This topic is purely concerned with decisions about the relevance of euthanasia to the social dynamics, and whether it should be allowed with the moral standards as a medical means of terminating the sufferance from a patient (Singer, 2003).
While different ideal shave been postulated about euthanasia, and a series of theoretical ramifications have been posted to either support or discredit its manifestation, this research will settle on one particular manifestation to discredit the possibility of euthanasia being allowed in medical operations. The supportive factors will be invoked from moral theorists and biblical teachings about the sanctity of human life.
Consequently, this paper will proceed from a definitive point of assisted-physician killings, the theory behind such manifestations, and the determination whether the course of action meets the moral limits of the value of life in the society (Hursthouse, 2012). The subsequent section will be divided as the demonstration of reasoning, the objection of counter responses, and vivid conclusion to the side taken about this question. Principally, my point of view with regards to this question is that euthanasia should never be allowed as a means of ending pain to individuals, and the key note supporting viewpoints will be based on the natural laws and other theoretical frameworks like utilitarianism.
Demonstration of Moral Reasoning
There are every reasons to justify the sanctity of life, and that life should remain sacred since it is Godly given., Various biblical verses point out that God gives life and takes it an opportune time, and not human intervention has sole power to dictates God’s will over life. Therefore, there are several theoretical assertions that support the sanctity of life, and discredit the idea of euthanasia as a means of ending sufferance (Hursthouse, 2012). Life is thus a blessing from God, and human beings ought to respect it regardless of the suffering that a patient might be undergoing.
The natural law is the first theoretical manifestation that discredits euthanasia as a means of ending human sufferance. This theory is emboldened on strong virtue of the Catholic Church that upholds the sanctity of human life. In addition, the Catholic Church holds a stringent viewpoint regarding mercy killings on grounds of value that life means before God. Therefore, this position is precept upon the maxims of moral absolutes that is validated in the biblical accords and teachings. One conformal point about Natural law is that certain precepts cannot be broken regardless of the overriding conditions at hand. This implies that, no matter the nature of sufferance that an individual experiences, taking away life though written consent can never be an ideal platform of showing social justice before God (Hursthouse, 2012). Besides, this theory is ramified on the precepts of doing good and it reiterates that no matter the action at the end, it will always remain an inferior to the sanctity of life. Thus, the end of sufferance does not justify an evil course, as written in the Holly Bible.
Natural laws discredit the manifestation of euthanasia in the society based on its primary precept of protecting and preserving the innocent lives. The rule that one should never kill an innocent person holds absolute truth under moral rules of natural laws, and it remains an anchor to the sustainability of life. Going by these standards of the natural law and the moral entrenchment of the catholic law, it would be said that euthanasia is an evil accord that only ruins the positive attributes in the Bible, and by far, repudiates the consent of positive morals in the society (Singer, 2003). In the same scenario, supporting euthanasia would be like justifying a law that allows one to kill himself. These two contexts have no variability, and would mean the same thing, and thus the law must be steadfast and supportive to the maxims and standards of the natural law.
The principles of double effects apply in this sense of reasoning, and totally contradict the essence of mercy killings. In fact, the standards of natural laws prohibit killings, and so it would be wrong to give a relief whose secondary consequence is death. For example, a doctor administering death injection must be aware that his actions amount to causing death as a secondary consequence. So in as much as one would argue that his actions are merely intended to relive the patient, the consequence of such actions remain more significant than the actual intention, especially when they are done with free consent of generating death as a by-product. Principally, death is never an appropriate outcome to any action purported to relive the patient.
The second supporting theory to discredit of euthanasia refers to the theory of Utilitarianism, which is based on life of making positive choices. This theory is grounded on the fact that a patient, whether suffering should never be relied upon when he makes negative choices. Thus, this theory postulates within its standing that choices made by human beings should be positive, and must respect the sanctity of life (Mill, Nd). Determination to end life is a negative choice, and it automatically discredits the sanctity of life in which God gave. Therefore, negative choices made under the influence of sufferance of turmoil must be discredited, and should not by any reasons be relied upon. Yet again in the Bible, Job experienced the worst torments of pain and suffering, but remained steadfast in the Lord. Thus, moral reasoning must be anchored on the Utilitarianism point of view, which strongly advocates for life made positive choices, than choice made out of frustration. Besides, it would be less viable to rely on person’s moral thinking when he makes decision to terminate his life due to pain. Indeed, this class of theory discredits Euthanasia as a means of terminating life due to severe suffering.
Utilitarianism theory of moral reasoning is grounded on positive ethics and decision making. Therefore, the consequence of making decision to terminate life should not be viewed on a myopic front, but should entail further analysis in determining of its moral soundness into the society. For example, if every suffering person would decide to take away their lives, then it means that hope for healing shall die, and people will resort to shortcuts of delusive options to death whenever fronted with such challenges; thus, discrediting the manifestation of killing as a way to ending pain.
Besides, killing is never justified in the Bible, and in most cases life is considered as a gift from God, and it is Him who has the power to give and take. No man has knowledge or capability to create life, and therefore, should not attempt to terminate one’s life (Mill, Nd). In addition, just like birth is a natural process, death should never be aided by human hands, since the beginning of life if God’s own gift. In addition, the positive choice that a patient makes should be regarded as the core decision, but negative choices must be disregarded by all and sundry. In as much as some people might view the decision to take away one’s life as a reprieve to them, they indeed fail to value that life can never be ended by human hands, lest it be considered as suicide or murder.
Objection and Main Response
There are varying contradictions and criticism to the Natural Law and the Utilitarianism theory with regards to their propositions that euthanasia should never be allowed as a means of mercy killing. The Kant’s ethical theory which stipulates that doing the right thing entails following what reason demands. This theory holds that the outcome of an action is indispensible of its efficiency and ethical manifestation (Kant, Nd). One side of arguments ton this theory is that sometimes, evil actions have a bearing for good consequences, and thus its postulates that an action should be dictated by the reasons, but its outcome. Kant’s theory does not give an absolute or express presumption for euthanasia, but it disregards the level of sufferance that an individual experiences, but relies on the consent of action.
The common maxims of Kant’s theoretical constructs are anchored on the concept of categorical imperative, which states that whether one’s life is ended, or allowed to suffer till death, he will still die, and this discredits the natural law’s prepositions that life hold sanctity and value before God, and no one should be killed to end his life. In addition, this theoretical paradigm holds that the choices that individuals make to die must be respected, since such people lose the will to live, and are destined for death (Kant, Nd).
In as much as this theory contradicts the theory of natural law, it still falls short of explaining whether euthanasia should be allowed or jot. While its precepts winds about the circumstances of choices and discretion, it does not give a clear explanation about the sanctity of life, and how it correlates with sufferance. Another of criticism to this theory is that, it contradicts itself when it states that one is destined to die when he loses the will to live, and regardless of the action taken, such a person would die. This is a yet another point of controversy since it does not give a convincing reason why one would take his life, if he is destined to die. It would be a matter of time for such a person to die, and as such taking his life would be suicidal or a procurement of a premature death. Based on these fundamentals of Kant’s ethical theory, I find it a subsidiary claim to undermine the standards of natural law and the Utilitarianism.
Conclusion
This paper has given a detailed description to different viewpoints with regards to the question whether euthanasia should be accepted as a means to ending pain among the suffering patients. The first theoretical constructs that discredits its manifestation in the natural law, which hold sits precepts based on the Catholic laws and belief in God’s teaching, which refutes an evil end as justification to a relief. In addition, this theory is filmy held on positive virtues and the doctrines in the Bible.
The second theory who’s some of its maxims might be interpreted as ethical and against euthanasia refers to the Utilitarianism, and its point of concern is on choices that people make (Kant, Nd). Choices made should be positive, and must support the virtues of positive living. This seems to be in the same class of reasoning to the natural laws. Furthermore, this paper has discredited Kant’s ethical theory, and states that it lacks the required standards to instigate a moral reasoning. Based on these reasons, I contend with the thesis statement that euthanasia should never be used as a means of ending sufferance among people.
References
Hursthouse, R. (2012). Virtue Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/#Bib
Kant, I.(Nd). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals in the original version in the textbook, or in the version by Jonathan Bennett. Retrieved from www.earlymoderntexts.com
Mill, J.S. (Nd). Utilitarianism, in the original version in the textbook, or in the version by Jonathan Bennett. Retrieved from www.earlymoderntexts.com
Singer, P. (2003). Voluntary euthanasia: A utilitarian perspective. Bioethics, 17(5/6), 526-541
