VOLUNTARY ACTIVE EUTHANASIA.   Term Paper ID:25124 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Definition, legal, medical & ethical issues, pros & cons, patient autonomy, utilitarian view.... More...

7 Pages / 1575 Words 6 sources, 12 Citations, TURABIAN Format $28.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Definition, legal, medical & ethical issues, pros & cons, patient autonomy, utilitarian view. Paper Introduction: Voluntary active euthanasia is a topic that raises many difficult moral questions. After considering arguments for and against this practice, however, it can be shown that voluntary active euthanasia is morally permissible--so long as it meets the terms as defined below. It is permissible because the autonomy of the individual allows him or her to decide whether extreme pain and suffering is a condition that he or she wishes to endure. But, since the practice involves both the individual who will die, and the person who ends that individual's life, it is necessary to consider the moral position of both parties. In the case of voluntary active euthanasia, the autonomy of the individual takes precedence over the usually morally impermissible act of taking another person's life. In addition, it must be asked whether the practice necessarily lends itself to Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. But, if the individual is to be truly autonomous,truly in charge of his own life, then something that he desires asearnestly as many terminally ill people desire voluntary active euthanasiacannot be morally impermissible. Physicians should never be deprived of the right to refuse toparticipate in any procedure that they deem immoral. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1996.----------------------- [1]John Olen and Vincent Barry, Applying Ethics: A Text with Readings(Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1996), 224.. One of these is the claim that denyingactive euthanasia to those in extreme pain is a form of cruelty. Jeffrey Olen and Vincent Barry, 235-238. But, since the practice involves both the individual whowill die, and the person who ends that individual's life, it is necessaryto consider the moral position of both parties. In the case of voluntaryactive euthanasia, the autonomy of the individual takes precedence over theusually morally impermissible act of taking another person's life. After considering arguments for and against thispractice, however, it can be shown that voluntary active euthanasia ismorally permissible--so long as it meets the terms as defined below. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1979.Olen, John, and Vincent Barry. He simply does not feel that this goodoutweighs the duty to the self that derives from the worth of theindividual human being. Thus, for example, an individualwho suffered from a crippling disease or condition, but was not in extremepain, might argue that he had a right to end his life since its quality wasnot acceptable to him. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1996.Rachels, James. In the case ofvoluntary active euthanasia, the autonomy of others is not a factor.Therefore, the choice of death, over a life of continuous pain, constitutesa morally acceptable alternative. This is aconvincing argument, since it is already common practice to allow theterminally ill to refuse life-sustaining treatment "out of compassion."[8]This is termed respect "for the autonomy of patients," and yet, it isargued that voluntary active euthanasia violates that autonomy--even thoughthe individual has made the decision to die.[9] The difference between allowing to die, and actively taking a life(at the request of the individual who will die) is also the objection thatis made to the claim that individuals have the right to die with dignity.Death with dignity may not be perceived as an important factor for manypeople. Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. As this argumentgoes, individuals who are drugged, or in extreme pain, for most of thetime, cannot be judged competent to make such decisions. Theassumption in many of the arguments against voluntary active euthanasia isthat death is, necessarily and evil. But, in cases where the pain cannot be effectivelyrelieved, the practice of voluntary active euthanasia allows the physicianto participate in ending pain that cannot be eliminated in any other way. If this were the case, the socialimpact of the practice would render it morally impermissible, even if, inideal cases, it was morally permissible. The distinction between passive and activeeuthanasia may be important, if one accepts the claim that all deliberatetaking of human life is morally impermissible. [12]John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1979),34. It does mean, however, thatthe possibilities would be weighed against the likelihood that no suchevents will come to pass--as is usually the case--and the certainty that,in the absence of such miracles, extreme suffering would ensue. Once autonomy is given the central position,and the avoidance of pain and suffering is shown to be a rational option,voluntary active euthanasia is shown to morally permissible. It is, however, perfectly possible to regard the takingof a life as morally wrong in most cases, but to make exceptions where anindividual makes the choice of death. But, it might also besaid, that active euthanasia violates the physicians duty toward hispatient. "Euthanasia and the Care of the Dying." In The Dilemmas of Euthanasia, ed. This mayinclude either a choice made by a conscious individual after the conditiondevelops, or a directive given prior to the development of a condition inwhich the individual may be incapable of making a decision because he orshe is unconscious or incompetent. Thisis the classic slippery slope argument, in which the criteria on which thepractice is based are gradually expanded. Another common objection is that there is "always the possibility ofmistaken diagnosis, a new cure, or spontaneous remission."[5] But, thepatient who makes the decision to have his own life ended is not likely todisregard these possibilities. Inaddition, it must be asked whether the practice necessarily lends itself toabuses that could not be controlled. Applying Ethics: A Text with Readings. "The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia." In Applying Ethics: A Text with Readings, ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1996.Kant, Immanuel. [2]James Rachels, "Active and Passive Euthanasia," in Applying Ethics:A Text with Readings, ed. Arguments for and against themoral permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia are considered. But, to some, the pain, wasting away, and reduction of theircapabilities that accompany a drawn-out death are "an unacceptable affrontto their dignity."[1 ] In Mill's utilitarian view, the choice of pleasure over pain is amoral duty to the self, and, so long as it does not infringe on theautonomy of others, any such choice is morally permissible. Murder is wrong because it isimposed on another, and shows a complete disregard for his autonomy. Thechoice that the individual makes in voluntary euthanasia, effectivelyeliminates that consideration. BibliographyBok, Sissela. Gradually, as Gay-Williams argues, otherswould be acting not just on behalf of patients who have authorized theiractions, but "on behalf of others who have not authorized them to exercisetheir judgment."[7] These potential abuses of the practice certainlyrepresent a real danger. While this end canlegitimately be described as a good, this is irrelevant because theindividual has radically undervalued himself in reaching the decision. According to Bok, however, the physician has two duties towardthe patient, "the struggle against death and disease," and "alleviatingpain."[6] Once the first function is no longer applicable, the secondfunction takes over. There are also several arguments in favor of voluntary activeeuthanasia that are not centered on the autonomous right of the individualto make decisions about himself. Voluntary euthanasia refers only to those cases in which thecompetent individual has made the conscious choice of euthanasia. John Behnke and Sissela Bok, 1-25. Allmoral decisions, for Kant, must take into consideration the fact that humanworth is "so great that there can be no higher interest."[3] When a moraldecision is to be made, the individual must balance the worth of hisautonomous self against the good he hopes to obtain. The final objection is that voluntary active euthanasia will have abroader social impact by opening the way for abuses of the practice. Euthanasia is an act that is defined in terms of the reasons forwhich it is performed. Forthe most part, the objections to the practice ignore the important questionof human autonomy, while the arguments in favor of the practice are basedprimarily on this criterion. Butthis does not mean that they would be ignored. [6]Sissela Bok, "Euthanasia and the Care of the Dying," in TheDilemmas of Euthanasia, ed. [5]Olen and Barry, 231. In the end, any social practice thatis subject to abuses must be carefully regulated by the society at large.Voluntary active euthanasia would be no different. John Behnke and Sissela Bok (Garden City, NY:Anchor, 1975), 15. [4]Ibid. But, as Mill notes, there isno means of demonstrating the desirability of a particular good, and "thesole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable is thatpeople do actually desire it."[12] It is morally permissible for the autonomous individual to elect todie, if the alternative is pain and suffering from which there is no hopeof recovery. Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1975.Gay-Williams, J. "Active and Passive Euthanasia." In Applying Ethics: A Text with Readings, ed. Yet, even Kant, in his concern forthe comparative worth of various goods, is willing to admit that theavoidance of pain is a good. But, to argue that the mere possibility of abusesmakes the practice itself morally impermissible is fallacious--the latterhas no effect on the former at all. This is adifficult point, but it does not apply to those who have made the decisionprior to reaching this point. Voluntary active euthanasia is a topic that raises many difficultmoral questions. Gay-Williams, "The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia," in ApplyingEthics: A Text with Readings, ed. This is the basic argument in favor ofvoluntary active euthanasia, i.e., that "individuals have the right todecide about their own lives and deaths."[11] As Mill notes, if we acceptthe notion of the autonomy of the individual, then we must accept the ideathat the desire of the rational, competent, autonomous individual forsomething he perceives as a good must be morally permissible--so long as itdoes not infringe on anyone else's autonomy. Kant would argue, forexample, that, by electing to die, as a means of avoiding pain, theindividual makes himself a means to a particular end. On the other hand, the practice might also begradually expanded to include nonvoluntary euthanasia for conditions whichothers define as intolerable. [8]Olen and Barry, 228. But, as Rachels has shown,it is very difficult to distinguish between the two on other moral grounds. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969.Mill, John Stuart. The subsequent loss of autonomy that may result from theterminal condition, and the pain involved, are not morally preferable tothe exercise of that autonomy as a means of avoiding intolerable pain. [11]Ibid., 228. [1 ]Ibid., 229. The claim that euthanasia amounts to the same thing as anyother deliberate taking of a human life disregards all special claims forthe circumstances. In contrasting "hisown personal worth" with that of the alleged good, it will be clear thatthe worth of "a pleasant or unpleasant condition is to be regarded asnothing."[4] Another significant objection to voluntary active euthanasia is thatthere is no way of ensuring that consent is voluntary. Another strong argument against voluntary active euthanasia is thatit places an undue burden on the physician who is requested to perform theact. They are, at best, very slim chances. An individual who has cancer could easilydecide, long before reaching a state of unbearable pain, or having hisfaculties limited by drugs, that he wishes to be able to state at whichpoint he wants to end his life. "Voluntary decisions also include thosecases in which persons take their own lives either directly or by refusingtreatment, and cases where patients deputize others to act on theirbehalf."[1] Active euthanasia refers to all cases in which steps are takento bring about the individual's death--as opposed to passive euthanasia, inwhich life support and treatment are withdrawn, and the medical conditionis allowed to produce death. Utilitarianism. Translated by Lewis White Beck. Jeffrey Olen and Vincent Barry, 231-234. It refers to those cases in which a person iskilled, or is allowed to die, because he is suffering from an illness,injury, or other condition from which he or she cannot reasonably expect torecover. It ispermissible because the autonomy of the individual allows him or her todecide whether extreme pain and suffering is a condition that he or shewishes to endure. [3]Immanuel Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans,Lewis White Beck (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969), 77. In terms of humane behavior, for example, the "process of being 'allowedto die' can be relatively slow and painful," while active euthanasia "isrelatively quick and painless."[2] In considering the arguments against voluntary active euthanasia, itbecomes clear that they set aside the claims of autonomy by either labelingeuthanasia as the equivalent of murder, or dwelling on possible abuses ofthe practice. Jeffrey Olen and Vincent Barry (Belmont,CA: Wadsworth, 1996), 233. [9]Ibid. But, this means that the choice can be equated with suicide, which isalso frequently regarded as morally impermissible. Jeffrey Olen and Vincent Barry (Belmont, CA:Wadsworth, 1996), 236. [7]J. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.