Euthanasia

Euthanasia
means easy death painless way, of an individual suffering from an incurable and agonizing disease popularly known as mercy killing, insofar as it is regarded as a merciful release from an incurable and prolonged suffering theory witch affirms an individuals right to die in a painless and peaceful manner when he is confronted with a horrible disease and the quality of his life deteriorates

Cases euthanasia can be grouped into:

Self administered
may be either active (positive) euthanasia, in which a terminally ill patient will deliberately, directly terminate his life by employing painless methods an act of commission insofar as if is voluntary and deliberate, or passive (negative) euthanasia, in which one allows oneself to die without taking any medicine or by refusing medical treatment it is an act of omission insofar as one simply refuses to make anything to sustain life

 Other administered
can be classified into four ways: 1. Active and voluntary euthanasia is on in which either a physician spouse, or a friend of the patient will terminate the latters life upon the latters request. It is voluntary insofar as it requested by the patient; in is active insofar as some positive means is used to terminate the patients life 2. Passive and voluntary euthanasia is one in which a terminally ill patient is simply allowed to die by the physician, spouse or an immediate relative, upon the patients request. It is passive insofar as no positive method is employed; the patient is merely permitted to pass away. It is voluntary insofar as this is done upon the patients request

3.

Active and nonvoluntary euthanasia occurs when it is the physician spouse, close friend, or relative who decides that the life of the terminally ill patient should be terminated. It is active insofar as some positive method is utilized to terminate the patients life; it is nonvoluntary insofar as the terminate of the patients life decided by an individual other than the patient

4. Passive and nonvoluntary euthanasia is one in which a terminally ill patient is simply allowed to die, as requested by immediate family members,(spouse or parents) or the attending physician. It is passive inasmuch as no positive means is employed to end the patients life; it is nonvoluntary insofar as other persons make the moral decision to terminate the patients life

Problem of human dignity

The moral issue of euthanasia revolves around the preservation of human dignity in death even to the individuals last breath. This issue has a positive and negative side. The former states that euthanasia aims to preserve human dignity until death. Not only does one have a duty to preserve life, but one has also the duty to die with dignity. To die with dignity means that one should be able to make the decision to die when dying would be better than to go on living with an incurable and distressing sickness. The negative side, on other hand, declares that euthanasia erodes human dignity. This is the crossroad of the moral issue: whereas the positive side insists that mercy killing preserves human dignity, the negative side claims the opposite since this act hastens the death of an individual

Different views
T. Gary William, considers it to be morally wrong:
1. Because it is an intentional killing and opposes the natural moral law, or the natural inclination to preserve life 2. Euthanasia may be performed for purposes of self-interest or other consequences

3. Doctors and other health care professionals may be tempted not to do their best to save the patient; they may resort to euthanasia as an easy way out and simply disregard any other alternatives

James Rachel, opts for euthanasia:

1. It allows suffering to be brought to a speedy end 2. Whether killing of any kind is right or wrong depends on the motives and circumstances under which it takes place

Philippa Foot, endorses both active & passive euthanasia, in which patient explicitly gives consent:
1. Everyone has a right to life hence it is what a person wants that counts 2. Only when a person has decided after batting some incurable disease, that life is no longer worth living that both active and passive voluntary euthanasia can be endorsed and regarded as legitimates and justified

Richard Brandt, applies Rosss notion:

1. Prima facie duty not to injure others in his analysis of the issue at hand
If someone is in an irreversible coma, for example, and all types of diagnoses have been made to confirm the hopelessness of the case, the patient is considered to be beyond injury. In such a situation, if instruction have been left for the patients life to be ended painlessly, if becomes our prima facie obligation to do so (active and voluntary euthanasia). Not to follow such a wish would be remiss in our prima facie obligation to keep others from further harm or more pain. However, if the patient has left instruction for his/her life is to be sustained under any circumstances, then we have a prima facie obligation to respect these wishes.

Application of Ethical Theories

Natural Law Ethics
1. Condemns mercy killing 2. Euthanasia is intrinsically wrong because it implies the direct deliberate killing of an individual-hence, it is murder 3. Even though the motive is good, the good does not justify the evil means in this case

Kants Ethics speaks of the human dignity of an autonomous rational being

We have a bounden duty to preserve our life. But once a person loses his autonomous status, and it is not clear whether there is still a duty to maintain ones life under such conditions It can also be argued that on Kants ethical principles, active and nonvoluntary euthanasia may be regarded as our duty to comatose and hopeless patients as a way of recognizing the dignity which that person possessed in his/her previous state

Furthermore, a terminally ill patient in a vegetative state is no longer an autonomous person with a self-regulating will. Hence, by Kantian principles, our duty to preserve life no longer holds.

Utilitarian principles of utility

it seems that its formulation about the greatest happiness and benefits for the greatest number of persons may render euthanasia legitimate Others may interpret the utility principles, which argues that since life is a necessary condition for happiness, that it is mostly wrong to destroy that condition, since by doing so the possibility of promoting happiness is forever lost

Moreover, organ-transplant advocates may argue that a comatose patient is going to die anyway, and his transplantable organs will benefits those who are in need (upon informed consent or with the permission of his immediate relatives), in this way, promoting the greatest benefits for the greatest number of individuals to be benefited will make euthanasia morally acceptable

Pragmatic Theory of Good and Truth

Justify euthanasia in general, it can be argued that when an individual has been in agony for a long time, and it has become unbearable to go on living in misery and pain, the most pragmatic moral decision to make is to put such a useless life to an end

The pragmatic moralist argue: the bottom line is this: the most realistic, beneficial and useful thing to do in a situation where recovery is nil, is to offer ones healthy organs to people who can still benefit from them. Why render them useless and allow them to die with the patient if others can still use them to continue living? From the pragmatic point of view, reason seems to dictate (although it may sound unorthodox) that offering out spare parts to others for their own survival, if and when we no longer have use them, appears to be legitimate and acceptable.

In the light of Rosss ethical principles, under facie duty to put a comatose patient to an easy death, depending upon a good motive e.g. to put an end, once and for all, to the prolonged suffering of the patient. It may be the most prudent thing to do under the prevailing balance of goodness over badness.

On Rawlss concept of justice,

Which argues than no amount of social good or welfare can override the inviolability of the individual it appears as if euthanasia would be illicit and unacceptable However, a persons inevitability demands that his dignity be preserved and justice be served if and when his death would be as painless and nonviolent as possible

For him to live and suffer needless pain and agony would be doing him more injustice than justice, more harm than good