Disregard this.
Tod Miller 12/11/05
Intro. to Ethics
Prof. R.J. Njoroge
The Right To Die: A Right Revoked?
The moral issue of assisted suicide/”Right to Die”/Voluntary Euthanasia is a massive one; relevant both to today’s headlines, and yesterday’s moral arguments. The main aim, objective, and goal of my research is to explore the concepts of Voluntary euthanasia by providing case evidence (and philosophical arguments based thereof), Familiarizing bioethical concepts to the “lay man”, and to stimulate thought and healthy ethical debate on concepts such as Passive vs. “Active” euthanasia, Palliative Care, The Hippocratic oath, Brain death vs. Traditional death, Vegetative states, and Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders (DNR orders) are key to the understanding of the issue, regardless of where you stand politically. These are matters of life and death, and decisions here are not to be made uninformed.
In today’s medical circles, a line is drawn imperfectly between when to exactly remove life sustaining equipment from those requiring it to remain biologically alive. Those in Persistent Vegetative States (PVS) are not conscious, “Awake”, nor do they exhibit any patterns of brain activity. They feel no pain, do not “think”, yet still remain alive due to respirators, feeding tubes, and innovate medical technology. There are primarily two forms of Euthanasia: Passive (merely allowing someone to die) and Active (A “Mercy Killing”, or Assisted Suicide with, or without medical personnel). Both require separate moral examination, as the voluntary wishes of the patient in question is removed from the latter. A “Mercy Killing” is involuntary on the patient’s part, he or she has not expressed a desire to die, and the decision is made by either close loved ones, or if lacking, the Physician on care.
The two key moral factors at work in this issue are both guarding the value and quality of life itself, versus the ne’er ending battle for personal freedom, in this case within the confines of medical care. Passive euthanasia requires no active participation to end the patient’s life, merely ceasing medical care, and allowing a natural death to arrive. The deontological argument against this practice burns with the claim that doctors are abandoning their patients, and that they have the obligation to maintain their lives irregardless of the condition, or quality of life. In an irreversible coma, One can remain alive via technology, but they live a life without dignity. There is no sanctity in life, when we pervert nature to keep those alive, who by nature, shouldn’t be. All of humanity is mortal, and our mortality itself is what fears us into this argument. We fear death, and do whatever we can, use any tool, any technology to reach the end, to reach immortality. Even a false sense of life is better than death to some. In this is where their logic fails; They keep those alive at all costs, and they count empathy among the victims.
Walking the line between Passive and active euthanasia is a movement that arose out of homecare, and focuses on quality of life, rather than the sheer quantity of it. The hospice approach (also referred to as Palliative care) focuses on pain alleviation, comfort, and overall acceptance of the inevitable conclusion of their illness. They use medication for symptom control, and have essentially ended the fight to cure the disease, and focus on enjoying their last remaining days with friends, family, and loved ones. This approach is a gradual introduction to the process of mourning, and allows for financial preparation. This is neither allowing someone to die, nor actively taking part in the ending of another’s life; Throwing it into the grey area between passive and active.
On the rather extreme end of the scale, Mercy killing/Mercy Deaths take the role as the most controversial, and the least condoned. Mercy deaths are by definition Assisted-Suicide, be it with assistance of medical personnel, or not. Mercy killing on the other hand, is the action of one ending another’s life (without authorization, or an expressed desire for death), with the intention of relieving pain, or restoring dignity. Dr. Kevorkian was a master of mercy deaths, assisting others with carrying out their plans of suicide, providing the means, but not the execution. A man killing his wife with Alzheimer’s out of pity, is committing a mercy killing.
With the clear understanding of the above, we must understand where the role of medical personnel fits in to the situation.
Upon achieving a Medical Doctorate, It is a custom for the new Doctor to take a solemn pledge, an Oath to do no harm. To never deny care to those needing; The oath of Hippocrates, or more commonly known as the Hippocratic oath. This is what creates the moral confusion surrounding doctors who performed these procedures. Here they have sworn to protect the lives of their patients, yet they sometimes actively participate in killing, even for the sake of mercy? For the open mind, Telelogical arguments tend to take root; Stating that this can on occasion be ethically sound, and that situations DO arise where death should be given to those that are still biologically alive. There are times where a death with dignity, without pain is better than living life as a passive “vegetable”, with no control over your actions, no thought, no brain activity, and no proven sense of emotion, or medically-defined consciousness.
The Deontologist differs. Most often they claim that under no circumstances is this moral, legal or not. They give the utmost to the sanctity of life, and that it must be preserved at all costs; using whatever tools mankind has available to him. This rather extreme ideology shows no tact with the use of medical tools. Judiciousness must be used when bestowing continued life as a passive unit, or allowing nature to run its course. Simply because we can perform medical procedures, does that mean we should? Does that mean we must? Such extremism is dangerous, even more so regarding questions of human life..
The simplest method to avoid the legal battles, and nearly negate the moral questioning is to simply express your desires. In writing. These desires are legally referred to as DNR orders, (Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders). These are entirely legal documents, expressing the patients wish to NOT be revived, beyond medically reasonable means. These are the ultimate methods of negating the debate over what the patient “Would’ve wanted”. These are entirely recognized in the eyes of the courts, and usually transfer Durable Power of Attorney, the authority to make medical and legal decisions over one who is not capable of doing so for him/herself.
Where does the “right” decision lie? What truly is wrong here? If you made which decision, which could your conscience justify? The truth, as always, rests in the centre. These occurrences are to be treated with gravity; No single prescription can fully take into account all the complexities in every premise. To paint all situations with the same brush would be sorely lacking in either compassion, or respect for medical science, and the chance for some to recover.
Intro. to Ethics
Prof. R.J. Njoroge
The Right To Die: A Right Revoked?
The moral issue of assisted suicide/”Right to Die”/Voluntary Euthanasia is a massive one; relevant both to today’s headlines, and yesterday’s moral arguments. The main aim, objective, and goal of my research is to explore the concepts of Voluntary euthanasia by providing case evidence (and philosophical arguments based thereof), Familiarizing bioethical concepts to the “lay man”, and to stimulate thought and healthy ethical debate on concepts such as Passive vs. “Active” euthanasia, Palliative Care, The Hippocratic oath, Brain death vs. Traditional death, Vegetative states, and Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders (DNR orders) are key to the understanding of the issue, regardless of where you stand politically. These are matters of life and death, and decisions here are not to be made uninformed.
In today’s medical circles, a line is drawn imperfectly between when to exactly remove life sustaining equipment from those requiring it to remain biologically alive. Those in Persistent Vegetative States (PVS) are not conscious, “Awake”, nor do they exhibit any patterns of brain activity. They feel no pain, do not “think”, yet still remain alive due to respirators, feeding tubes, and innovate medical technology. There are primarily two forms of Euthanasia: Passive (merely allowing someone to die) and Active (A “Mercy Killing”, or Assisted Suicide with, or without medical personnel). Both require separate moral examination, as the voluntary wishes of the patient in question is removed from the latter. A “Mercy Killing” is involuntary on the patient’s part, he or she has not expressed a desire to die, and the decision is made by either close loved ones, or if lacking, the Physician on care.
The two key moral factors at work in this issue are both guarding the value and quality of life itself, versus the ne’er ending battle for personal freedom, in this case within the confines of medical care. Passive euthanasia requires no active participation to end the patient’s life, merely ceasing medical care, and allowing a natural death to arrive. The deontological argument against this practice burns with the claim that doctors are abandoning their patients, and that they have the obligation to maintain their lives irregardless of the condition, or quality of life. In an irreversible coma, One can remain alive via technology, but they live a life without dignity. There is no sanctity in life, when we pervert nature to keep those alive, who by nature, shouldn’t be. All of humanity is mortal, and our mortality itself is what fears us into this argument. We fear death, and do whatever we can, use any tool, any technology to reach the end, to reach immortality. Even a false sense of life is better than death to some. In this is where their logic fails; They keep those alive at all costs, and they count empathy among the victims.
Walking the line between Passive and active euthanasia is a movement that arose out of homecare, and focuses on quality of life, rather than the sheer quantity of it. The hospice approach (also referred to as Palliative care) focuses on pain alleviation, comfort, and overall acceptance of the inevitable conclusion of their illness. They use medication for symptom control, and have essentially ended the fight to cure the disease, and focus on enjoying their last remaining days with friends, family, and loved ones. This approach is a gradual introduction to the process of mourning, and allows for financial preparation. This is neither allowing someone to die, nor actively taking part in the ending of another’s life; Throwing it into the grey area between passive and active.
On the rather extreme end of the scale, Mercy killing/Mercy Deaths take the role as the most controversial, and the least condoned. Mercy deaths are by definition Assisted-Suicide, be it with assistance of medical personnel, or not. Mercy killing on the other hand, is the action of one ending another’s life (without authorization, or an expressed desire for death), with the intention of relieving pain, or restoring dignity. Dr. Kevorkian was a master of mercy deaths, assisting others with carrying out their plans of suicide, providing the means, but not the execution. A man killing his wife with Alzheimer’s out of pity, is committing a mercy killing.
With the clear understanding of the above, we must understand where the role of medical personnel fits in to the situation.
Upon achieving a Medical Doctorate, It is a custom for the new Doctor to take a solemn pledge, an Oath to do no harm. To never deny care to those needing; The oath of Hippocrates, or more commonly known as the Hippocratic oath. This is what creates the moral confusion surrounding doctors who performed these procedures. Here they have sworn to protect the lives of their patients, yet they sometimes actively participate in killing, even for the sake of mercy? For the open mind, Telelogical arguments tend to take root; Stating that this can on occasion be ethically sound, and that situations DO arise where death should be given to those that are still biologically alive. There are times where a death with dignity, without pain is better than living life as a passive “vegetable”, with no control over your actions, no thought, no brain activity, and no proven sense of emotion, or medically-defined consciousness.
The Deontologist differs. Most often they claim that under no circumstances is this moral, legal or not. They give the utmost to the sanctity of life, and that it must be preserved at all costs; using whatever tools mankind has available to him. This rather extreme ideology shows no tact with the use of medical tools. Judiciousness must be used when bestowing continued life as a passive unit, or allowing nature to run its course. Simply because we can perform medical procedures, does that mean we should? Does that mean we must? Such extremism is dangerous, even more so regarding questions of human life..
The simplest method to avoid the legal battles, and nearly negate the moral questioning is to simply express your desires. In writing. These desires are legally referred to as DNR orders, (Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders). These are entirely legal documents, expressing the patients wish to NOT be revived, beyond medically reasonable means. These are the ultimate methods of negating the debate over what the patient “Would’ve wanted”. These are entirely recognized in the eyes of the courts, and usually transfer Durable Power of Attorney, the authority to make medical and legal decisions over one who is not capable of doing so for him/herself.
Where does the “right” decision lie? What truly is wrong here? If you made which decision, which could your conscience justify? The truth, as always, rests in the centre. These occurrences are to be treated with gravity; No single prescription can fully take into account all the complexities in every premise. To paint all situations with the same brush would be sorely lacking in either compassion, or respect for medical science, and the chance for some to recover.