The topic of this essay is to review opposing positions on the topic of “Euthanasia” . The source for the essay is James Rachel’s 'The Right thing to Do', 6th edition. Euthanasia is defined as intentionally killing by action or omission of a dependent person for his or her alleged benefit. If the death occurs without being intended, it doesn’t qualify as an act of euthanasia. (Euthanasia Definitions).
The discussion of Euthanasia is very important to our study of ethics as it is the process of ending a life voluntarily. Though this practice has surfaced to end the misery of suffering patients, it is morally questionable for a doctor to end his patient’s life. There can be misuse of this practice, and it can lead to various legal cases. For this purpose, It is essential to take properly in account its ethical consequences.The position being discussed here is the right action to take when a terminally ill patient is suffering unimaginable pain. Is it more ethical to put a person out of his misery, when his eventual prognosis is death; or is it more moral to continue any and all treatment that may keep such a patient alive.
In the chapters “The Morality of Euthanasia” and “The Wrongfulness for Euthanasia”, authors James Rachels and Gay Williams put their opposing opinions in a very clear manner. James Rachel argues that the most powerful argument for the support of euthanasia is the “argument from mercy” The simple idea of this argument is that most terminally-ill patients experience pain that cannot be imagined by those of use not suffering the same pain. In fact, in most cases we cannot even hear or read the description of someone’s pain in their last days. To support this argument, he gives us an example of Stewart Alsop’s writing on the topic. Stewart Alsop, who died of cancer in the year 1975, came to approve of the practice of euthanasia after spending time with another terminally ill patient. In his writing, Stewart gives us an account of a patient named Jack, who was diagnosed with a melanoma in his belly,. The doctors guessed that his tumor was the size of a softball, and though they planned on removing it, they were of the opinion that Jack would not live much longer. At twenty-eight years of age and a metastasized tumor, Jack was in tremendous pain that was temporarily soothed by synthetic opiate injection every four hours. The shot provided him relief for about two hours. Between the prescribed time of the shots and ill Jack’s discomfort would resurface, he would be in agonizing pain. Alsop quoted that after witnessing Jack’s pain, it occurred to him that if a dog was suffering. Instead, he would definitely put it to sleep. He mentions that no human being with even an ounce of pity would let another person suffer so excruciatingly without any good end. Rachels points out that Alsop, who had never thought much over the topic of euthanasia, was convinced of the merits of the practice after he witnessed the amount of pain terminally ill patients experience.
In addition to his main argument for mercy, Alsop also mentions the Utilitarian views on legalizing the practice of euthanasia. Utilitarian philosophy is about judging an action by the amount of happiness brings into the world and the amount of misery it reduces. Since letting a terminally ill patients choose to end his pain also ends his misery, euthanasia is morally right. People, who oppose the Principle of Utility, believe that happiness is not the only right that is of importance. Respecting and protecting other people’s rights, justice and freedom are also very important values. Rachels points out that relying on the utilitarian principle is a shaky ground to argue in favor of euthanasia. He points of that if a person is suffering unfathomable pain but does not want o die, letting him die would reduce his misery but will not be in accordance to his will. This would amount to unjustifiable murder. However, he goes on to explain that promoting happiness and ending misery are still very important values, if not the most important ones. He supports voluntary euthanasia, where the patient consents o be allowed o die peacefully, in which case nobody’s rights are being violated, and misery is ended.
Gradually, Rachels leads us to his evolved argument for mercy which states that if an action is in accordance of the best interests of everybody without violating anyone’s rights, it is a moral action. Since, active euthanasia is in the best interest of everyone involved and violated no one’s rights at least in some cases; it is moral in those cases and should be allowed. He supports his argument by resorting to Jack’s example from Stewart Alsop’s writing. He points out that the euthanasia in Jack’s case would have ended his and his wife’s misery. In addition, the hospital could concentrate medical care towards other patients who have a chance of survival, thus making euthanasia everyone’s best resort if Jack himself were to request it. Thus, no violation of his rights would occur, and his misery would end.
On the contrary, Gay Williams provided his argument against the practice of euthanasia in the chapter “The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia” Williams begins his argument by pointing out that a lot of people have started agreeing with the idea of euthanasia because it brings out a sense of compassion and sympathy in people. People tend to think that if someone is better of being dead, then it is alright to let them die. He mentions that even though he respects the sentiments of compassion, he is strongly opposed to the practice of euthanasia. He provides us with a clear definition of euthanasia, where there must be clear intent to kill a person by administering a drug or stopping life support. Williams makes the use of three arguments to convince us of his position. The Argument from Nature, The Argument from Self-Interest and the Argument from practical purposes are the three arguments. In the Argument from Nature, Williams mentions that human beings have an instinct to survive. This survival instinct is what runs the human body. If we have a wound, white blood cells are rushed to the spot of injury. If we are down with an infection, our body produces antibodies to ward of the infection. He points out that the euthanasia is against this very natural instinct of human beings. He also says that euthanasia takes away our dignity in the way of not letting us seek our ends. By going against our goal for survival, Williams says that the euthanasia regards us as less than human.
The second argument employed by Williams is that of the Argument for Self-Interest. According to this theory, death is an irreversible process. Once a patient has decided to die and is given a lethal drug or is taken off his life support, he will die and cannot decide to come back to life. Furthermore, he adds that in contemporary medicine, doctors are often wrong about prognosis, and not all diseases may end with death. There are cases where people have miraculously got better and lived long functional lives. But by choosing to die, a person gives up a hope of an experimental cure or much better reality than predicted by current medicine. Additionally, if such an option were to be made available, people would give up more easily and quickly. Finally, Williams provides the argument from practical efforts. In this argument, he points out that the main duty for doctors and physicians is to save patients. A doctor measures his success by the number of patients he saves. By allowing euthanasia to be legal, doctors could start giving up more easily and become lazy in their efforts to try and save patients. Also, if a patient becomes mentally unable to make this decision, it is handed over to other family members. This is a very slippery slope as it is dependent on the judgment of other people and can be misused very easily.
After having read the arguments provided by both the authors, I will provide my analysis and evaluation of the reasons provided by both authors. To start with, James Rachels’ arguments have a very strong foundation in reality. Rachels passed away in the year 2003 after battling Cancer. Even though he wrote his book End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality in the year 1986, his opinions did on the topic did not change till the end of his life. After knowing this fact, an excerpt from his writing seems much more valid and truthful. In addition to his own experience, Rachels’ writing has real-life battles of Joseph Fletcher and Stewart Alsop. The Irish Satirist Joseph Fletcher took eight years to pass away. H wrote that during this time, his mind literally crumbled to pieces and his pain drove him to an uncontrollable desire to tear his eyes out. Additionally, the very sorrowful instance of Rachels’ roommate in the hospital, Jack is also provided. This gives us a lot of real life examples to understand the excruciating pain some terminally ill patients have to go through. For those of us who sought to form opinions on the topic, this comes very close to providing accounts of those who are actually suffering. The arguments cited by Rachels’ like the argument of mercy and the utilitarian policies make a strong enough point on their own. However, Rachels’ own customized version of the utilitarian policy sounds very apt and aims to not violate anyone’s freedom. Rachels’ makes a very strong case and is successful in arousing feelings of compassion and sympathy in his readers.
The arguments provided by Gay Williams are also very strong. The biggest difficulty that lies in front of Williams is to be able to nullify the feelings of compassion that lead people advocating euthanasia. However, he does a great job of dodging this landmine when he quotes that he respects such feelings upfront. This statement does an excellent job of acknowledging the feeling of all groups of people. From this, Williams proceeds to explain three exceptionally strong reasons as to why he is against euthanasia. His arguments from self-interest and nature provide the reader with plausible reasons for why this practice goes against our basic natures. However, his arguments, though intelligent, lack any real life examples. By saying that by choosing to die, a person goes against his natural instinct is true but there is no judging the person for this decision. Since anyone who is not experiencing the same pain cannot judge or a direct a person to do otherwise sine the basic human instinct is to survive. Additionally, his argument from self-interest, that choosing death is an irreversible decision is also true. However, it takes years for a cure to be found and in some cases even those cure don’t work on very person. To say that a person should choose to wait for a miraculous cure or for an extended duration is discounting the pain and discomfort the patient is in. The third argument by Williams is the strongest one in my opinion. In this argument, he mentions how legalizing euthanasia could lead to the complacency of doctors in saving their patients and in other people misusing this law. This argument begs putting proper measures in place to monitor properly and track doctors, medical staff, and family members before euthanasia can be legalized.
Overall, I feel Williams’ arguments could have benefited from some real life examples. In conclusion, I would like to state that Rachels’ present better and more practical arguments on euthanasia. I found myself more convinced that euthanasia should be allowed in the cases where nobody’s rights are violated, and it is in the best interests of everyone involved.
Works Cited:
Rachels, James. The Right Thing to Do: Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy. New York: Random House, 1989. Print.
