Euthanizing Civil Liberties

There are numerous issues surrounding the controversial discussion on Euthanasia. There is little doubt that any sane human on Earth would prefer a peaceful timely death, opposed to a drawn out agonizing departure. However, at what length are we willing to take responsibility; and at what point, if any, does the desire for death circumvent civil liberty? This paper will discuss voluntary euthanasia in regards to the terminally ill, who competently make a request for assisted suicide. I will reason that individual rights hold highest authority in decisions affecting the individual’s well-being. I will also examine the religious opposition toward active euthanasia. I will argue there is no difference in ethics comparing passive to active euthanasia and I will conclude with a controlled plan to regulate and decriminalize active euthanasia for the terminally ill. The topics of involuntary euthanasia for patients in a state of comatose or those no longer competent of rational decision will not be discussed, for these instances are never morally sound.

 Euthanasia is not a recent trend or modern invention of contemporary societies. Hippocrates wrote on the subject around 400 B.C. while developing the Hippocratic Oath and it has ever since been an ongoing debate. For centuries man has been euthanizing sick animals and even fallen comrades in battle; all to end the suffering of the hopeless.  In more recent history, medical care and procedure has evolved exponentially. The ability to prolong a patient’s life has created a novel sense of longevity. With the capability to extend life even past that of experiential quality, the consideration of purposely causing death seems absurd. But our concern is with that of the terminally ill, where a competent person with all reasoning faculties, believes death to be more desirable than their current existence. In respects of the terminally ill, there should be no authority other than their own.

James Rachels commented on this topic in his book, “The End of Life, Euthanasia and Morality.” “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant…Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” (180)

The rights of an individual should never be denied unless an act would infringe on another’s rights, cause harm to others, or is categorically harmful to the individual’s wellbeing. Some may argue that euthanasia would emotionally harm the family and close friends of the patient and therefore justify revoking the right. However, any individual close enough to claim emotion harm would also be close enough to understand the pain the patient is currently going through. The relief of suffering outweighs the fear of emotion distress, and to keep the patient in pain to avoid it themselves would be beyond selfish. Others claim that death itself is the ultimate harm to ones wellbeing, though I disagree. When examining the experience of life with a terminally ill disease causing an incurable amount of continuous pain, I see it clearly more beneficial to a person’s wellbeing to decide, when ready, to end their life and be at peace.

Life itself is not always enjoyable; it is the quality that we measure. Once that quality is gone, no quantity of life can ever make up for the loss. However, death is a source of fear for many because at its center is the unknown. There is no way for us to know whether death is far better, far worse, or impartial in comparison to all that we know and feel here in life. When a disease has taken someone to the face of that unknown and left them there to lie in agonizing expectation, who is better equipped to make the choice of life or death than those on the brink of both worlds.

One of the biggest groups opposing euthanasia is that of the religious sect. Many believe it to be “playing God” when choosing to end a life before God’s intended date. Religious leaders and representatives have made many arguments on this topic however none are morally sound. One argument claims that it is wrong to shorten a person’s life, as it is impeding “God’s plan”. However, one must then also admit it is equally wrong when we use any means to lengthen that life as well. Curing even an easily manageable disease, heart surgery, blood transfusion, transplants, etc. all of these must be accepted as ways we as humans intervene in “God’s plan”.  If the issue is human involvement in a strictly divine scheme, both are guilty of “playing god”. Similarly, others argue that God never intended life to be painless, we are meant to endure, while being promised never to be given more than we can withstand. Just as before, if we are to accept this belief, than any methods of modern medicine used to prevent or manage pain is being used in complete objection to God. The core argument put forth by religious objectors is the sixth commandment: thou shalt not kill. Although much like the rest of scripture, the interpretation of this commandment is disputable.

James Rachels explains, “(The) Sixth commandment: thou shalt not kill is a bad translation. A better translation is thou shalt not commit murder. Which does not prohibit mercy-killing. Murder is by definition wrongful killing, so if you do not consider a given kind of killing as wrong, you will not call it murder.” (161)

By my interpretation the sixth commandment is put forth to condemn those that commit unjust killing. There have been biblical exceptions to killing, such as times of war or self-defense. Even an example taken from a passage of the Bible itself, (2 Samuel 1:9-10) ⁹ “Then he said to me, ‘Stand here by me and kill me! I’m in the throes of death, but I’m still alive.’ ¹⁰ So I stood beside him and killed him, because I knew that after he had fallen he could not survive.” While distinguishing criminal killing from merciful killing is still a debatable subject, one fact remains; the sixth commandment is not an all-inclusive condemnation of killing.

The morality of active euthanasia remains a heated dispute between those that believe it to be an inalienable right and those who fear putting responsibility in the hands of another human. Currently in the United States passive euthanasia is not only legal but a common practice among those terminally ill or just timeworn elderly. Both passive and active euthanasia result in death, however passive has become a justified means primarily due to its hands off approach. It is considered ethical to remove someone from a respirator, for example, to let them wither and eventually die of suffocation. However it is not considered ethical, in a legal stance, to inject that same person with barbiturates to induce a peaceful sleep in which they may pass instantly in comfort.

There is no unique difference in these two methods to brand one moral while another immoral. In fact, if someone were to argue for the moral validity of one over the other, it seems much more rational to side with active euthanasia. With both these decisions, one thing is certain; it has been decided that the person is better off in death than in life. If it has already been decided to shorten their life, all to end

suffering, why then would someone choose the option resulting in more suffering by extend that life for any additional amount of time? To proceed by “pulling the plug” you have made a conscience action that will end a life; however they will remain alive for minutes, hours or days in possible pain or distress. To proceed with an injection, the person will immediately fall into a deep sleep to confidently pass with no discomfort.

Many have worried that regulation of active euthanasia would lead us down a slippery slope toward other forms of euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is feared to become a possibility for coma patients who have no power of attorney, children stricken with incurable or even some manageable birth defects at the discretion of the parents, as well as the elderly who may be looked at as a nuisance on both medical and financial fronts. Euthanasia is always, without a doubt, unethical for those who are involuntary. However, nothing indicates that support for active euthanasia in terminally ill patients would lead anyone to support these other types of clearly immoral acts; and the mere possibility does not establish such evidence.

There is no definitive answer or formula for deciding if life has become an affliction. That is why one must be allowed to decide for themselves whether their life retains the value and dignity to make life worth living. Provided the patient is competent, their own judgment alone should hold power.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states, “Advocates of voluntary euthanasia contend that if a person is suffering from a terminal illness; is unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure for that illness during what remains of their life expectancy; is, as a direct result of the illness, either suffering intolerable pain, or only has available a life that is unacceptably burdensome; has an enduring, voluntary and competent wish to die (or has, prior to losing the competence to do so, expressed a wish to die in the event that conditions (a)-(c) are satisfied); and is unable without assistance to commit suicide, then there should be legal and medical provision to enable them to be allowed to die or assisted to die.”

Now what remains is how to regulate voluntary euthanasia and prevent its possible abuse. Many have presented their proposed procedure for a patient; however most include months or years of paper

pushing, petitioning, doctor and family witness trials and a ruling in court requiring two or more medical experts. Plans such as these are counter-productive for a patient looking to end suffering and pain. Not to mention those patients physically incapable of completing such requests.

To avoid this nuisance James Rachel’s proposes a mercy-killing plea, which would be treated much like self-defense in the event of a trial,

 “Just as self-defense is an acceptable form of killing so then should mercy killing. Someone charged with homicide, in any of the varieties this charge may take, could plead mercy killing, and then, if it could be shown that the victim while competent requested death, and that the victim was suffering from a painful terminal illness, the defendant would also be acquitted.” (185)

This simply requires the “victim”, while competent, to pre-record a statement clearing said person of charges, complete a written agreement, and any other precaution deemed necessary before-hand to prove without a doubt that the action was a mercy-killing and not a homicide. Those cases in which it is clearly a request for mercy-killing, in which none of the family, friends or authorities raise objection would have no need to see a courtroom. Those that are not as clear cut would then rely on the evidence and their own defense to prove themselves innocent. This alone would prevent the vast majority from attempting to abuse the law.

I have stated that human rights are valid and authoritative in matters concerning an individual’s own well-being. Also I have shown that the religious objection to active euthanasia does not stand on any sound argument, and there is no discernible difference in the morality of passive over active euthanasia.  I then concluded by laying out a rational plan to decriminalize active euthanasia. The fact voluntary euthanasia, for the terminally ill, has not yet been sanctioned is due to the fear of a cultural backslide. The fear is one of less value placed on a human’s life. However, it is that value we have for life that should allow us to show mercy on those lives that no longer hold value for the individual.

Bibliography.

Rachels, James. “The End of Life, Euthanasia and Morality.” Oxford University Press, (1986): 161-185. Print.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Voluntary Euthanasia”. Robert Young. Web. Visited on Oct 20, 2011. plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/

“The Bible”. New International Version. 2 Samuel 1:9-10.