Euthanasia has been one of the most controversial issues discussed in philosophy and medical fields. The term euthanasia refers to the deliberate actions of medical practitioners to end one’s life for benevolent reasons such a relief from suffering and pain (peter Odianosen on Immanuel Kant’s Moral Theory). Therefore, the controversy arising is the right to die at one’s own choice. There several ways through which euthanasia is performed. Voluntary euthanasia involves termination of a patient’s life at the patient’s instructions to the person other than the patient. It thus involves the termination of a terminally ill person, and is seen as merciful killing. Involuntary euthanasia involves termination of a patient life without the consent of the patient. It is seen at times as murder since the patient had not requested for the termination of his or her life.
There are two aspects of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia involves an individual deliberately and directly causing death of a patient. It thus can involve taking any measures that would terminate the life of the patient and end suffering. It may involve an overdose of painkillers with the aim to hasten the death of the person. Passive euthanasia on the other hand involves letting the patient to die slowly. It does not involve methods of hastening the death of the patient. It may be performed by withdrawing treatment. The patient in such a scenario may refuse treatment. Many people belief that active euthanasia is better than passive euthanasia since the pain in passive euthanasia affects the patient before death. This paper seeks to analyze the arguments in support of the voluntary euthanasia.
First, euthanasia has some far reaching legal aspects that ought to be observed. Different countries have different laws surrounding voluntary euthanasia. For examples, in the United State, the Oregon State has legislated on euthanasia allowing for specific merciful killing assisted by physician under very restricted conditions. However, there were serious contentions on the law and that has led to over two-thirds of the USA reject such legislation. The right to die is viewed and held based on social cultural aspects and issues. The final verdict on such legislation is passed on to the people in from of referendum for the people to decide. Australia and some States of America are some of the countries that have legislated successfully on mercy killing (Sharon I Fraser, and James W Walters, 2000). It would be a crime to perform voluntary euthanasia in countries that do not legislatively supports it.
According to Immanuel Kant, nothing is good except if done on good will. However, this should be confused with of does not imply self-control, courage, happiness, intelligence are important. Kant argues that what makes something good is not the action but the intentions as determined by the will of the actor. If intelligence, wealth, power, honor are not utilized based on good will, then such would be not good. In this case, the goodness of an action is not tied to the end result. Death is bad end to any human life.
However, life full of suffering that is beyond control in any scientific and human knowledge renders life unbearable, intolerable, and very difficult. Based on this perspective, voluntary euthanasia would be good if it is done to help one evade excruciating pain and suffering. The act of performing such would be a virtue on its volition that it is good. The desire to end suffering is in itself good regardless of the means of attaining it. David Roy and Charles-Henri Rapin (1994)opines that the medical practitioners have the professional and moral mandate to use all reasonable mean to free patients from suffering and pain. It such moral and professional duty that permits the use of merciful killing since it falls among the ‘all possible means’ to free a patient from pain and suffering.
The will of a person are tied on the duty. The medical practitioners are under obligation to serve the patients. It is their duty. One’s actions in performing one’s duties are not tied on emotions, personal inclinations or self-interest. Actions have true moral worth if such actions originate from the recognition of one’s duty and choices thereof in discharging them. Based on this, the medical practitioners would have the duty to perform voluntary euthanasia upon request by the patient and would do so as purely an act of duty.
According to John O. Willoughby, Robert G Marr and Colin P Wendell-Smith (2013), several facts have been established concerning the end of life. They include the following
- Death is associated with intolerable suffering and a crescendo of suffering as death approaches.
- Some pains and suffering can only be relieved by death
- Some patients after a careful consideration of their case, would persistently requests for euthanasia
- In most cases, palliative care does not relieve all the suffering and pain from the patient(Paice JA, Muir JC, Shotts S., 2004) and that
- Palliative care may take into consideration terminal sedation in order to alleviate suffering and pain from the patient.
These facts, although they indicate the levels at which the medical facilities may be failing to offer proper services, cannot just be ignored. The facts states the daily experiences in most hospitals nursing terminally ill patients. The rationale decision arrived by the patient to request or even demand for euthanasia should not be ignored. Australian Medical Association (AMA) code of ethics calls for the following practice i.e. treatment of the patients with respect and compassion, health care is a collaboration between the doctor, and the respect of the patient’s right to make his or her own decision concerning the treatment procedures and treatment. It is therefore evident; that the right of choice of the patient has to be respected. The code of conducts further specify that for the dying patient; while acknowledging the obligation of medical practitioners is to preserve life, when death is deemed imminent, and the life prolonging treatment proves futile, the medics are under obligation to ensure that the patient dies with comfort and dignity. It further guides that the right of the terminally ill to receive treatment that alleviates pain and suffering should be respected, even when such treatment may shorten the life of the patient.
The question that arises is whether the patient’s request is moral. Human are entities treated are special and an end to themselves. It based on this that they are referred to persons other than things as it is to insects, birds, fish, among others. Therefore, the rationale human being makes decisions based on logical reasoning and established methods. At some point during treatment, the end point arrive such that, any human actions even with the sophistication of the machines and technological innovations prolong death.
At such a point a decision has to be made since continues use of such treatment process makes the patient undergoes excruciating pain. Withdrawal or discontinuing of life-prolonging treatment is a possible choice, in most cases, the only choice. Prolonging life with the extreme suffering and pain is not the right thing to do. The principle of proportionality allows for patients to die when the treatment to prolong there lives cause more suffering. Such a situation leaves no alternatives other than merciful killing to help the patient be free of the pain and suffering.
What drives such decisions may vary. As indicated earlier, humans are special and are able to make rational decisions. On the same issue, each human is different from each other. Therefore, each patient is different and should be treated as so in making decisions. The principle is critical in provision of best practices in health. It implies that the desires of each patient are unique should be adhered to in a unique way. Such a case brings out the futility arguments in treatemnt. It is accepted that patients are not to undertake treatment that is futile.
Two critical components of futility play a big role in this case i.e. the physiological effects and the patient’s benefits. Some treatments do not provide the desired physiological effects on particular patients. For example, chemotherapeutically halting metastatic may have nil effects and thus, would be a futile treatment. It indicates that it cannot produce the required effects in a particular patient. If such treatment was the final remedy, continuing with the futile treatment would be wrong. It thus means other options as voluntary euthanasia could be considered.
In conclusion, where as her are many supporting arguments for voluntary euthanasia, there are equally counter acting arguments that questions the morality of such decisions as the validity of a decision of an ailing person. Nevertheless, the good will, as described by Immanuel Kant in the categorical imperative supersedes all the arguments against it. It is also strengthened by the freedom of choice of the person and the laws backing the practice. However, the case uncovers the vulnerability of humans in the face of challenges. Medical facilities would be deemed to fail depending on the number of voluntary euthanasia they undertakes. Such would be directly indicating the capability of the medical facilities as well as it failures.
References
Peter Odianosen; Immanuel Kant’s Moral theory as a response to euthanasia. http://www.academia.edu/1407390/Immanuel_kants_Moral_theory_as_a_response_to_eu thanasia
Sharon I Fraser, and James W Walters( 2000).Death - whose decision? Euthanasia and the
terminally ill. J Med Ethics 2000;26:121-125 doi:10.1136/jme.26.2.121
Paice JA, Muir JC, Shott S. (2004) Palliative care at the end of life: comparing quality in diverse
settings. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 21: 19-27
John O Willoughby, Robert G Marr and Colin P Wendell-Smith (2013). Doctors in support of
law reform for voluntary euthanasia retrieved from
https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2013/198/4/doctors-support-law-reform-voluntary euthanasia#2 on May 25, 2014.
