Philosophy
I would like to define first what (active) euthanasia is. The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek words eu, which means good, and thanatos, which means death. In short, euthanasia is a “euphemism” for death (Johnston). Many people consider active euthanasia or “good” death as a deliberate mercy killing of patients who are terminally ill, comatose, in vegetative states, or similar situation. Active euthanasia is done by either laypersons or professionals “out of concern” for such patients (Franko 2). Whether it is the ill persons’ will or with the consent of family members, they who request for direct mercy killing would rather be dead prior to a natural death because of their continual suffering or long agony brought about by “only the most extreme conditions” (Orlando 22). Given such scenario, defenders of active euthanasia advocate for the basic human rights of all people, not only of life, but also death. They insist that brain dead patients, via their loved ones, should be given the legal permission for doctors to end their lives. On the other hand, opponents of euthanasia groups insist that (mercy) killing people (or letting others do it for them) is similar to murder –even with legal and medical consents (Basri 48). Hence, the question remains whether to legalize active euthanasia or not. But before that, let me first present arguments and objections to the arguments of those who are in favor or against active euthanasia before I, at the concluding remarks, present my thesis based on a consideration of “well-supported reasons embodying logic, reason, and research.”
Defenders of Active Euthanasia Individuals/Groups
Defenders of active euthanasia people claim that all people have the explicit rights to choose what to do with their lives, even to the point of ending it. For them, people possess the personal freedom to do as they please with their lives, such as when under the anathema of a debilitating illness. Additionally, defenders of active euthanasia argue that all human beings have inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and/or even death. Since people own their lives, it is on their own discretion and risk to choose among the best alternatives in life. For instance, some Japanese who save faces resort to hara-kiri or the traditional ritual suicide. Hence, not far from the concept of various forms of self-destruction, active euthanasia is simply considered as an alternative too for people who want to end their life because of unbearable suffering, hopes for a good death, and possibly fears of abuse. Moreover, if people’s rights to terminate their lives do not violate other individuals’ rights, mercy killing should be legally permitted by our society. For those who advocate active euthanasia, it is a violation of personal freedom if people are denied the help to achieve quick death because their pitiful life is now unworthy of continued existence. Thus, many adherents of active euthanasia assert that upon people attaining maturity, they should already have control over all their decisions in life. Since people on earth came into this world without predetermined consent, it is only fitting now that as rational individuals, they should be given full discretionary power to decide and act according to their best interest as autonomous beings. Family members of those who undergo good death are thankful for having physician-assisted death because it is already nearly impossible for them to live normal lives. The death wish is like a sweet smelling aroma for their souls once they finally become detached from excruciating pains.
Second, defenders of active euthanasia insist that to avoid great economic burden, wastage of health, medical, and other resources, patients in vegetative states should rather be allowed to die. The reason is for them to help conserve a variety of resources for other hundreds or even millions of indigent individuals who need more immediate help and treatment for curable diseases. Apparently, active euthanasia defenders believe that there are more people from many underdeveloped and calamity-prone countries who need the most financial services (such as, healthcare, medical). If more scarce resources are saved, thousands or even millions of people will be cured to live healthy and meaningful lives and become productive members again of their society (such as when money is allocated on research for the cure). Since some individuals who suffer constantly excruciating pain want to die anyway, it is best to allot human services, such as less expensive drugs and other amenities to those who have a greater chance of recuperating from common diseases (such as in the use of vaccine). If people who are comatose, terminally ill, or in vegetative states continue to live for years or decades, we only let them suffer the more and remain as burdens of their families and society. Because there usually is not a cure for diseases that require mercy killing, people in favor of pleasant death reason out: Why should not we rather give them what they want or deserve (that is, peaceful death).
Given the arguments above by pro-euthanasia groups/individuals, if active euthanasia is legalized, many people can then choose the right to die as an alternative or for their best interest. With laws, active euthanasia would be practiced legally and it would mean proper regulatory measures of medical practitioners. Thus, instead of licensed doctors performing active euthanasia clandestinely, it won’t be the case because they won’t get penalized anymore. Just like prostitution, gambling, abortion, etc. in other countries, because they are legal, there is no problem for practitioners to engage in activities considered illicit by other countries. They are also not stigmatized, incarcerated, made as outcast, and so on. People who opt to do such activities freely do so lawfully. So, why not do the same for mercy killing? Further, since euthanasia happens anywhere anyway at any time across the world, active euthanasia claimers push for its lawful implementation as the only possible best solution. With active euthanasia being legal, many physicians would then practice mercy killing without much burden to their conscience either. Since death is a part of the normal cycle of life, why should we not rather have active euthanasia as an alternative? Should we rather allow it to be illegal so that more people will be incarcerated for being merciful to their loved ones? Are not other countries have harsher laws, who kill others for the sake of their tradition (e.g., beheading other human being whose religious practices are not as merciful as those contrary to theirs)? Why should not rather legalize active euthanasia so that practitioners have to follow utmost professional standards in performing mercy killing? However, before delivering my final statement about this polemical matter, let me proceed with those who are against the legalization of mercy killing.
Opponents of Active Euthanasia
The refutation to the above first arguments of defenders of active euthanasia is that opponents of active euthanasia argue that despite people having rights, freedom, or free will, it is limited. For theistic philosophers, God has the Sole Authority to take people’s lives and they should not play God. Since God is the Provider of Life and Everything, He alone is the Rightful Claimer of the life of any person. Despite the fact that individuals die in different manners, God has the final word when it is time for human beings to rest in peace. In other words, anything that people call freedom is limited because of being mortal beings only. Unlike God who is Immortal, although He takes again people’s lives, He alone can resurrect them. No one, for that matter, is above The Almighty. People should not use their freedom to do anything that is contrary to the normal flow of nature. Hence, many counterclaimers of active euthanasia argue that no argument is best to justify mercy killing no matter how good people’s reasoning and intentions are. Opponents of active euthanasia assert that no person is as merciful as God. Because human beings will die anyway, let alone God decide when it is time for them to face death. Further, individuals who like mercy killing will only weaken respect for the sanctity of life in the long run. The fact that there are unscrupulous and evil-minded individuals means that they will advance their own self- or vested-interest. In some cases, even when someone who is terminally ill or in vegetative state does not want to die, that is, should he/she be given the chance to be conscious and speak, he/she may not concur with the supposedly ‘mercy’ that is to be shown by these evil people. Somehow, many individuals still believe in miracles, that they do happen. So, as believers of God, they do wait and see rather succumb to undue futility.
Second, for anti-mercy killing groups, killing dying human beings to conserve scarce health, financial, medical, etc. resources is simply a foolish idea of evil-minded individuals. People’s lives are more precious than all the material possessions in the world. Likewise, if individuals are simply considered as undesirable members of their family/society, more ethical problems may ensue. Professionals and other practitioners may abuse the authority given to them by law to get rid of their enemies, disabled individuals, and special children seen as burdens only of our society (e.g., Nazi doctors performing various sorts of inhumane experimentations, genocides in various parts of the world, etc.). When we kill our fellow human beings, can we bring their lives back should there suddenly be a cure for their diseases? Maybe, that is already next to impossible.
In conclusion, given my balanced view of active euthanasia based on the arguments and counterclaims that I presented above, I am not in favor of legalizing active euthanasia because, as a theistic individual, I strongly believe that God is most loving, most merciful, and wisest than anyone else. In addition, mercy killing might only lead to other unexpected disadvantages (e.g., infanticide, genocide, etc.). Moreover, it can be used for more inhumane acts. Further, legalizing active euthanasia would undermine more and more the sanctity of lives because not all professionals will act in the name of laws, their conscience, etc. Some selfish individuals who value money more than lives will have more chance to kill others intentionally for their own evil purposes and gains. Therefore, active euthanasia will be much more unfavorable to anyone who live but once; so, why not rather value life despite anything contrary to it? Yet, I still want to live the question with you: Should active euthanasia be legalized? It is yours to decide.
Works Cited
Basri, Zakyah. Euthanasia: Which M Is It? Mercy Or Murder? Indiana: AuthorHouse, 2012. Print.
Franko, Matthew. A Defense of Active Euthanasia. University of California: University of California, 2009. Web.
Johnston, Will. Rebranding Killing and Suicide: The Ugly Truth About Euthanasia. 1 December 2013. Web. 1 December 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/will-johnston/euthanasia-assisted-suicide_b_3779914.html>.
Orlando, Stephen. An Argument for the Legalization of Active Euthanasia. 1 April 2010. Web. 30 November 2013.
