(no subject)
The right of choice to create personal autonomy is vital. In the raging debate about euthanasia, this right to define what makes life worth living for an individual is currently infringed upon. The infringement comes from a misunderstood idea of the two forms of euthanasia. The two kinds of euthanasia are active and passive. At the moment, passive euthanasia is allowed under certain circumstances and active euthanasia is not allowed at all. However, because there is no difference in intention between active and passive euthanasia, both should be considered permissible. Active euthanasia in particular should be allowed under certain circumstances of physiological terminal illness that may result in unrelieved pain if the afflicted person were emotionally and intellectually competent of their situation because there is a fundamental right for everyone to decide how his or her own life is made happy even if that ironically means ending it.
Some arguments try to convince people that passive euthanasia and active euthanasia are two extraordinarily different forms of euthanasia. Something is passive euthanasia when treatment to a person is intentionally stopped to let the person die a “natural death” while active euthanasia is an injection given to the patient to kill him or her. While these two kinds are indeed different in approach, the outcome is entirely identical, and both should be permissible. To illustrate this more thoroughly, consider these two theoretical cases provided by James Rachels in his essay, “Active and Passive Euthanasia.” The first case involves a guy named Smith, who is the uncle of a boy. If anything happens to the boy, Smith will gain a large inheritance. At some point while the boy is taking his bath, Smith drowns the boy and then arranges his body to look like he drowned on his own. The second case involves a guy named Jones, who is in a similar situation as Smith in that he will gain a large inheritance from his nephew if the boy dies. Much to his delight, the nephew of Jones slips on his own while taking his bath and drowns, all while Jones is watching and does nothing to help. He let the child die. Is there a difference between the two cases in so far as the moral point of view? Was either man acting more morally correct than the other? They both acted from the same motive and personal gain, and both men had the same end in mind when they acted (Rachels 654). That end, exactly like both active and passive euthanasia, is death.
Now, because active and passive euthanasia are really the same in intent, they should both be permissible because a person should be allowed to choose for him or herself what one’s rights are in the pursuit of happiness. Everyone who lives in the U.S. has heard of the Declaration of Independence; it is widely respected for verbalizing the fundamental rights we have as citizens of the United States and as human beings. Elegantly stated is this famous section from the document, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The quote asserts that all people are entitled to self-autonomy even within the restraints of government, by saying that they are inherently given a right from their creation to pursue, independently, a life of happiness. These rights are “unalienable,” meaning that all people have equal access to choose how to exercise these rights. Passive euthanasia is allowed for just these reasons, but active euthanasia strangely is not. Active euthanasia is a particularly special example of an individual’s right to create a situation where a person chooses his or hers own happiness and, based on the government’s document, should be able to create that situation without the government telling them they cannot.
Some people will argue that active euthanasia should not be allowed, regardless of the rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence, because the right to die goes against the Hippocratic oath. This oath essentially says that a doctor should preserve life and not inflict harm on a patient. The argument that the Hippocratic oath is a morally sound document is valid. However, the use of euthanasia can get complicated, especially when we start to consider what exactly makes life worth living at all, and the interpretation of the oath is actually harmful. The problem with that oath is that it assumes that we should always want to continue to fight for life, when in fact that is obviously not the case. Just the mere fact that people ask for euthanasia demonstrates that the oath is no good, because all it takes it one person who feels like they do not want to live to make the whole system worthless. I believe the oath was set up with a protective intention, but it must be modified for those seeking euthanasia, because for those people the oath is enormously not protective of their rights. Much of the argument lies in the idea that it is not up to unaffected person to decide how the affected person should live. When the Hippocratic oath makes the argument that no doctor should inflict harm on a patient, it becomes obvious that the person affected with the disease is in fact harmed when his or her desires to die are imposed upon, even though the document is interpreted as saying that dying is harm.
Timothy Quill, a University professor and division head of internal medicine at the Genesee Hospital, does a great job of humanizing someone who was indeed affected by all this in his essay, “Death and Dignity: A Case of Individualized Decision Making.” In his essay he explains to the reader that one of his patients he was close to, Diane, was diagnosed with leukemia, and has a slim chance of surviving the disease. Faced with only one real choice by the doctor, which was to go through months of painful therapy away from her home in a hospital, Diane came up with her own choice. Her choice was to live out the rest of her days at home, with her family. She decided that when the time came that she was no longer capable of living happily, she would voluntarily and actively end her own life. After discussing this with her family, they all agreed that this was going to be the better way to deal with the leukemia. She was pursuing her own idea of what would make her happy, and it worked out well (Quill 657). This example contributes very poignantly to how much it means for an individual to carefully think out his or her decision and understand the negative effects leukemia can have on a person’s desire to live and then being able to choose his or her own life’s worth.
When we do not have the option to choose for ourselves what is to happen in our lives, we feel trapped inside a government that does not uphold to its own standard of happiness by imposing its own ideas of how we should be happy in an authoritative manner. It is obvious that, had Diane not been given the means to end her own life, and she was forced against her will into a hospital away from her home, she would not have been happy. Our government has said, and rightly so, that it should not be allowed to conflict with our ideas of how to live our life happily, and by making active euthanasia illegal, the government is not allowing for a very profound choice that should be allowed in those people wishing it on themselves.
Some people believe that active euthanasia is not a right choice, but a form of murder, and therefore a wrong choice. Unfortunately, this is an extremely weak argument because it does not come to terms with the fact that euthanasia is not really murder at all. Murder is defined as killing with a premeditated, malicious intent. Active euthanasia is certainly not intended as something that is maliciously premeditated. An alternative argument may then progress into the fact that euthanasia, if not murder, should still not be allowed because of the mere fact that it is killing, and killing is wrong. That argument is just as inadequate, because it does not account for the killing that happens and is indeed allowed and accepted by generally everyone for his or her safety. For example, war and capital punishment both involve killing, the former being toward enemies of the state and the latter being toward convicted felons, both posing a great threat toward others in their society. So if active euthanasia is not murder, but killing, and killing is not always bad, who is to say that active euthanasia is not one of the examples of a time when it is not bad killing? The sheer fact that someone expresses a desire for there own painless death shows that it is irrelevant to impose the idea on them that they are wrong in choosing that means to an end, because choosing our own form of happiness is not wrong.
Euthanasia should not be allowed for someone with a severe case of depression or any other mental disorder, so when someone is expressing a desire for their own death, the person has carefully thought out their own decision about what makes them happy with the awareness that they are also suffering from a physiologically terminal illness. This illness causes more pain in their life than they could possibly handle to continue being happy. They believe that if “X” makes them happy, and they cannot have “X” anymore, then their life is not worth living. In this way, is it not obvious that it is inhumane to force someone to live a life that does not make him or her happy? We have this wonderful ability to know what makes life worth living. Certain important aspects about everyday life change drastically for a patient dying of cancer. Many times they lose the abilities that make life worth living like the ability to walk correctly, eat correctly, and even go to the bathroom correctly. We all can decide for ourselves what makes us happy, and clearly the people expressing a desire to be euthanized have made the competent, well thought out decision that there life has ceased to be worth living, due to the drastic and negative consequences terminal illness has provided them.
People who ask for euthanasia, besides being competent of their situation, are simply exercising a right for their own personal autonomy. Choosing the way we pursue our own happiness has been the most fundamental aspect of living in the United States. The Declaration of Independence has stated that our choices toward personal autonomy should not be made by the government but by our selves. If a person is fine with living life as long as possible without being euthanized, even if that involved great pain and suffering, that is fine. No one has said that that person should be forced to end their life, and just as they may choose to pursue the longest life possible, so a person should be able to choose to end their life when life ceases to make them happy, and when happiness is ironically found in ending life in their own terms.
Works Cited
Quill, Timothy. “”Death and Dignity: A Case of Individualized Decision Making.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed. Sylvan Barnet, Hugo Bedau. Vol. 7. New York: Bedford/ St. Martins, 2005. 651-657.
Rachels, James. “Active and Passive Euthanasia.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed. Sylvan Barnet, Hugo Bedau. Vol. 7. New York: Bedford/ St. Martins, 2005. 651-657.
Some arguments try to convince people that passive euthanasia and active euthanasia are two extraordinarily different forms of euthanasia. Something is passive euthanasia when treatment to a person is intentionally stopped to let the person die a “natural death” while active euthanasia is an injection given to the patient to kill him or her. While these two kinds are indeed different in approach, the outcome is entirely identical, and both should be permissible. To illustrate this more thoroughly, consider these two theoretical cases provided by James Rachels in his essay, “Active and Passive Euthanasia.” The first case involves a guy named Smith, who is the uncle of a boy. If anything happens to the boy, Smith will gain a large inheritance. At some point while the boy is taking his bath, Smith drowns the boy and then arranges his body to look like he drowned on his own. The second case involves a guy named Jones, who is in a similar situation as Smith in that he will gain a large inheritance from his nephew if the boy dies. Much to his delight, the nephew of Jones slips on his own while taking his bath and drowns, all while Jones is watching and does nothing to help. He let the child die. Is there a difference between the two cases in so far as the moral point of view? Was either man acting more morally correct than the other? They both acted from the same motive and personal gain, and both men had the same end in mind when they acted (Rachels 654). That end, exactly like both active and passive euthanasia, is death.
Now, because active and passive euthanasia are really the same in intent, they should both be permissible because a person should be allowed to choose for him or herself what one’s rights are in the pursuit of happiness. Everyone who lives in the U.S. has heard of the Declaration of Independence; it is widely respected for verbalizing the fundamental rights we have as citizens of the United States and as human beings. Elegantly stated is this famous section from the document, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The quote asserts that all people are entitled to self-autonomy even within the restraints of government, by saying that they are inherently given a right from their creation to pursue, independently, a life of happiness. These rights are “unalienable,” meaning that all people have equal access to choose how to exercise these rights. Passive euthanasia is allowed for just these reasons, but active euthanasia strangely is not. Active euthanasia is a particularly special example of an individual’s right to create a situation where a person chooses his or hers own happiness and, based on the government’s document, should be able to create that situation without the government telling them they cannot.
Some people will argue that active euthanasia should not be allowed, regardless of the rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence, because the right to die goes against the Hippocratic oath. This oath essentially says that a doctor should preserve life and not inflict harm on a patient. The argument that the Hippocratic oath is a morally sound document is valid. However, the use of euthanasia can get complicated, especially when we start to consider what exactly makes life worth living at all, and the interpretation of the oath is actually harmful. The problem with that oath is that it assumes that we should always want to continue to fight for life, when in fact that is obviously not the case. Just the mere fact that people ask for euthanasia demonstrates that the oath is no good, because all it takes it one person who feels like they do not want to live to make the whole system worthless. I believe the oath was set up with a protective intention, but it must be modified for those seeking euthanasia, because for those people the oath is enormously not protective of their rights. Much of the argument lies in the idea that it is not up to unaffected person to decide how the affected person should live. When the Hippocratic oath makes the argument that no doctor should inflict harm on a patient, it becomes obvious that the person affected with the disease is in fact harmed when his or her desires to die are imposed upon, even though the document is interpreted as saying that dying is harm.
Timothy Quill, a University professor and division head of internal medicine at the Genesee Hospital, does a great job of humanizing someone who was indeed affected by all this in his essay, “Death and Dignity: A Case of Individualized Decision Making.” In his essay he explains to the reader that one of his patients he was close to, Diane, was diagnosed with leukemia, and has a slim chance of surviving the disease. Faced with only one real choice by the doctor, which was to go through months of painful therapy away from her home in a hospital, Diane came up with her own choice. Her choice was to live out the rest of her days at home, with her family. She decided that when the time came that she was no longer capable of living happily, she would voluntarily and actively end her own life. After discussing this with her family, they all agreed that this was going to be the better way to deal with the leukemia. She was pursuing her own idea of what would make her happy, and it worked out well (Quill 657). This example contributes very poignantly to how much it means for an individual to carefully think out his or her decision and understand the negative effects leukemia can have on a person’s desire to live and then being able to choose his or her own life’s worth.
When we do not have the option to choose for ourselves what is to happen in our lives, we feel trapped inside a government that does not uphold to its own standard of happiness by imposing its own ideas of how we should be happy in an authoritative manner. It is obvious that, had Diane not been given the means to end her own life, and she was forced against her will into a hospital away from her home, she would not have been happy. Our government has said, and rightly so, that it should not be allowed to conflict with our ideas of how to live our life happily, and by making active euthanasia illegal, the government is not allowing for a very profound choice that should be allowed in those people wishing it on themselves.
Some people believe that active euthanasia is not a right choice, but a form of murder, and therefore a wrong choice. Unfortunately, this is an extremely weak argument because it does not come to terms with the fact that euthanasia is not really murder at all. Murder is defined as killing with a premeditated, malicious intent. Active euthanasia is certainly not intended as something that is maliciously premeditated. An alternative argument may then progress into the fact that euthanasia, if not murder, should still not be allowed because of the mere fact that it is killing, and killing is wrong. That argument is just as inadequate, because it does not account for the killing that happens and is indeed allowed and accepted by generally everyone for his or her safety. For example, war and capital punishment both involve killing, the former being toward enemies of the state and the latter being toward convicted felons, both posing a great threat toward others in their society. So if active euthanasia is not murder, but killing, and killing is not always bad, who is to say that active euthanasia is not one of the examples of a time when it is not bad killing? The sheer fact that someone expresses a desire for there own painless death shows that it is irrelevant to impose the idea on them that they are wrong in choosing that means to an end, because choosing our own form of happiness is not wrong.
Euthanasia should not be allowed for someone with a severe case of depression or any other mental disorder, so when someone is expressing a desire for their own death, the person has carefully thought out their own decision about what makes them happy with the awareness that they are also suffering from a physiologically terminal illness. This illness causes more pain in their life than they could possibly handle to continue being happy. They believe that if “X” makes them happy, and they cannot have “X” anymore, then their life is not worth living. In this way, is it not obvious that it is inhumane to force someone to live a life that does not make him or her happy? We have this wonderful ability to know what makes life worth living. Certain important aspects about everyday life change drastically for a patient dying of cancer. Many times they lose the abilities that make life worth living like the ability to walk correctly, eat correctly, and even go to the bathroom correctly. We all can decide for ourselves what makes us happy, and clearly the people expressing a desire to be euthanized have made the competent, well thought out decision that there life has ceased to be worth living, due to the drastic and negative consequences terminal illness has provided them.
People who ask for euthanasia, besides being competent of their situation, are simply exercising a right for their own personal autonomy. Choosing the way we pursue our own happiness has been the most fundamental aspect of living in the United States. The Declaration of Independence has stated that our choices toward personal autonomy should not be made by the government but by our selves. If a person is fine with living life as long as possible without being euthanized, even if that involved great pain and suffering, that is fine. No one has said that that person should be forced to end their life, and just as they may choose to pursue the longest life possible, so a person should be able to choose to end their life when life ceases to make them happy, and when happiness is ironically found in ending life in their own terms.
Works Cited
Quill, Timothy. “”Death and Dignity: A Case of Individualized Decision Making.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed. Sylvan Barnet, Hugo Bedau. Vol. 7. New York: Bedford/ St. Martins, 2005. 651-657.
Rachels, James. “Active and Passive Euthanasia.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed. Sylvan Barnet, Hugo Bedau. Vol. 7. New York: Bedford/ St. Martins, 2005. 651-657.