One of the purposes of this course is to help students be able to objectively consider all points of view. To be able to argue effectively you must be able to know and understand both sides of an argument. This paper will be a measure of how well you are able to do that. You are being ask to research an issue upon which there is a disagreement. You will write the paper from your viewpoint, showing all the facts and reasons to support that side of the issue. You will also want to be sure you include 3 major points that your opposition would argue. You will explain those points and then explain why these arguments are flawed.
Euthanasia is derived from the Greek words eu, which means beautiful, and thanatos, which means death; in combination, euthanasia means beautiful death. Still, many people would refer to euthanasia as mercy killing, that is, terminally ill individuals are killed before their time rather than continue with their seemingly long agony. Defenders of pleasant death or mercy killing argue that all individuals have basic human rights to life and death; they insist that individuals (or their family members) should be permitted to claim the lives of their loved ones because of their languishing plight. On the contrary, opponents of euthanasia argue that killing oneself (or letting others do it for them) is tantamount to murder –even with their consents. Hence, euthanasia presents a moral conflict because there is no definite resolution or consensus to any of the objectively held arguments for or against it, as we shall see below:
First, individuals who are in favor of euthanasia claim that anyone has an explicit right to decide what to do with his or her life and how to end it. The manner in which a person wants to end his life is a personal choice, especially under the anathema of a debilitating illness. All human beings, according to those who favor euthanasia, have inalienable rights to life, property, liberty, and even death. Since everyone has its own life (or life belongs to the one who possesses it), so is death. Just like for some Japanese who want to save faces, for instance, they resort to hara-kiri or traditional ritual suicide. Thus, not far from the concept of any other forms of self-destruction, mercy killing is an alternative for individuals who want to end their futile life because they would rather prefer a decent death than die in such an inutile state. Moreover, if a person’s right to terminate his or her life do not violate other people’s rights, euthanasia should be permissible by society. It would rather be a violation of personal freedom if an individual is “denied the help to achieve the quick death” unworthy already of continued existence (Scoccia, 2005, p. 152). Many adherents of euthanasia assert that upon attaining maturity, individuals are already in control of their life’s decisions. Since individuals were brought here on earth without consent of any form, because that is plainly not possible, it is only appropriate that now that they are rationally mature, they should be given the full discretion to act based on their best interest as free individuals. Those who chose euthanasia are thankful for having physician-assisted death because it is impossible already for them to live normal lives. The demand for death is like a sweet smelling aroma for their souls because, finally, they would be forever detached from any excruciating pain or mortal torment. Those who undergo euthanasia simply leave a last will to their family members.
Second, pro-euthanasia groups and individuals argue that to avoid great economic burden or wastage of health, medical, and other resources, individuals in vegetative states should rather be permitted to die (Dowbiggin, 2007). In doing so, they will help conserve hundreds or thousands of individuals, especially poor ones who need immediate treatment for easily or readily curable diseases. Apparently, people from many calamity-prone, underdeveloped countries need most financial healthcare, medical, and other forms of assistance. Out of the scarce and dwindling resources that are used cautiously and frugally many people will be cured to live again healthy and meaningful lives as productive members again of the society. Since people who suffer unbearable diseases wanted to die anyway, it is best to allot basic human services, less expensive drugs, and other amenities to those who have the greater chance of recuperating from common illnesses. If people who are terminally ill, comatose, or in vegetative states keep on living their lives for years or decades, we only let them repeatedly suffer and continue to be mere burdens of our society. Because there usually is not a cure for people with diseases requiring mercy killing, why should not we rather give them what they deserve (that is, peaceful death), as most pro-euthanasia advocates claim?
Third, another argument from pro-euthanasia people is that euthanasia should be legalized so that anyone can choose what or which is in their best interest. With laws, the legal practice of euthanasia would mean proper regulatory measures of medical practitioners (Hinman, 2011 ). Instead of doing euthanasia illegally, licensed doctors will not be penalized when they conduct mercy killing. Take for instance abortion, prostitution, etc. in some countries; because they are legal, those who engage or practice them do not suffer social stigma, incarceration, and other sanctions. People who opt to undergo and/or perform such activities freely do so. So, why not do the same for mercy killing? Further, because euthanasia occurs anyway anywhere at any time worldwide, pro-mercy killing defenders advocate for lawful regulation as the best solution. With euthanasia being legal, physicians can do mercy killing without much burden to their conscience. Since death is a part of the cycle of life, why should not we rather resort to euthanasia as a last resort? Do we not legalize something that is clandestine in nature or illegal for it to appear acceptable socially (e.g., gambling, marijuana use in some states)? Isn’t a simple failure to comply with a law in some countries might equate to harsh punishment (e.g., fingers are cut off for stealing)? Aren’t there peculiar and country-/region-specific laws (e.g., clitoridectomy) considered prejudicial or even detrimental to the interest even for the majority of people? Why not legalize euthanasia instead so that practitioners have to follow utmost professional standards to provide what is fort the best interests of patients.
Anti-Euthanasia Arguments
First counterargument to the above pro-euthanasia claim of anti-euthanasia individuals and groups is that, though people have freewill, it is limited because only God has the Ultimate Authority to take people’s lives. Because God is the Giver of Life, He alone is the Rightful Owner to take it back from anyone. Although people die differently, they die anyway, and God has the final word when it is time for human beings to die. In other words, anything that people call freedom is self-limiting because they are but mortal beings. Unlike God who is Immortal, although He takes again the breath of life that He gives to people, it will live in eternity. In short, no one is above God and people should not use their freedom to oppose God’s natural way of taking lives back (Stolberg, 2007). Hence, many anti-mercy killing strongly believe that there is not any argument to justify euthanasia no matter how best people’s reasoning, intentions, and/or intuitions are. Anti-euthanasia would insist that if those who resort to mercy killing are only trying to be as merciful as they could, God is still the most merciful. Because people will die anyway, let God decide when it is time for anyone to face death. Moreover, those who say that they will kill because they are merciful may only weaken respect for the sanctity of life. The fact that there are unscrupulous and evil-minded people would definitely result to more killings, especially of their enemies, simply to advance self-interest. In some cases, even when someone who is terminally ill or in vegetative state does not want to have the personal choice to die soon, such individuals will do their best for their devilish scheme to come into fruition. That way, they might inherit, for example, the wealth of the person subjected to involuntary euthanasia. In recap, those who are against mercy killing would insist that God could perform miracles just to make a person recover from life-threatening illnesses. Thus, why should we be wiser than God? We should let God make the final decision when to take our lives back. Further, as the cliché goes, “A live dog is still better than a dead lion” or “there is always hope while still alive.” Many people believe that miracles do happen; hence, true believers of the Most Merciful God just have to wait and see, whether a miracle would transpire or not.
Second, for anti-mercy killing groups, killing dying individuals to conserve scarce health, medical, financial, etc. resources is simply a foolish idea. People’s lives are more important than mere material possessions. Likewise, if people are simply considered as undesirable members of their family and society, more ethical and related problems might surely ensue (Schiavo, n.d.). For instance, witty individuals will resort to reprehensible acts such that there is a greater possibility for involuntary euthanasia. Professionals and other practitioners might abuse their authorities just to get rid of their enemies, disabled people, and even special children justified as burdens of society. Likewise, when a person is killed, what should we do to counter it in the event that a cure for a disease or illness has been discovered? It is next to impossible to bring back a person’s life. Whenever people show their compassions with their fellow human beings who are in severely acute medical conditions and not equate it with physical resources or monies, people may save lives when a cure is finally discovered.
Third, anti-euthanasia claim that legalization of euthanasia will only result to the undermining of life. Evil-minded agents will do their best to gain more from it (Michalsen & Reinhart, 2006). Some people will use it to blackmail others to kill a dying patient just to make lots of profit. Even when a terminally ill person does not want to die yet, a physician can be used as an accomplice to a ‘crime’ to do euthanasia upon the request of a family member. Whatever the motive behind the act, what is sure about it is that the victim is at its worst situation, much worse than his or her current predicament. He or she would probably lose all that he or she had after he or she died instead of leaving it to his or her dear ones. Just think of a legalizing euthanasia where there is no punishment for wittingly doing it. Better not to legalize it than be at a sorrier state than before. Sometimes it is best to leave things as they are than meddle with them. Just like some laws, legal euthanasia will surely have loopholes. Thus, anti-mercy-killing defenders strongly believe that they rightfully advocate for a passage instead of a law that prohibit euthanasia rather than its legalization.
In conclusion, I am not in favor of euthanasia because I strongly believe that God is more loving, more merciful, and wiser than anyone of us is. Additionally, euthanasia might only lead to additional adverse consequences such as infanticide, genocide, etc., just like what Hitler did. Moreover, it can be used for more inhumane acts never before imagined. Further, legalizing euthanasia would undermine more lives because not all professionals will act professionally. Some selfish individuals and groups value money more than life, even if it is the lives of their “loved ones” that are at stakes. Therefore, euthanasia will always be unfavorable to anyone of us who live but once. So, why do we not value life instead despite anything to the contrary?
References
Dowbiggin, I. (2007). A Concise History of Euthanasia: Life, Death, God, and Medicine. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Hinman, L. (2011 , September 16). Euthanasia and End-of-Life Decisions. Retrieved from Ethics Update: http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Applied/Euthanasia/
Michalsen, A., & Reinhart, K. (2006). Euthanasia": A confusing term, abused under the Nazi regime and misused in present end-of-life debate. Intensive Care Medicine, 32(9), 1304–1310.
Schiavo, T. (n.d.). Fact About Euthanasia. Retrieved from Life and Hope Network: http://www.terrisfight.org/facts-about-euthanasia/
Scoccia, D. (2005). Slippery-Slope Objections to Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia. Public Affairs Quarterly, 19(2), 143-161. Retrieved from http://web.nmsu.edu/~dscoccia/research/4--Scoccia.pdf
Stolberg, M. (2007). Active Euthanasia in Pre-ModernSociety, 1500–1800: Learned Debates and Popular Practices. Social History of Medicine, 20(2), 206–207.
