There
are some things in our lives which we simply cannot decide whether it is right
or wrong. The debate goes on between proponents of both sides yet nothing can
be agreed upon universally. Such topics are hard to resolve and no conclusion
can be extracted from them so that all would concur to a certain extent; the
differences simply continue between the two extremes. Because of such
disputable nature, taking an ethical decision regarding those topics is equally
hard. To be more precise, the doubts about the righteousness of the decision always
prevail. One of such topics, I should say a “hot topic”, about which numerous
discussions and arguments have been done worldwide is Euthanasia.
The definition of Euthanasia varies
according to different sources and perspectives. Some say that Euthanasia is a
voluntary termination of someone’s life if the person requests one to relieve
him/her from severe pain or suffering. Some other ideas suggest that it is also
Euthanasia if we believe that somebody cannot tolerate the pain or suffering,
if the person cannot explicitly express the desire to die, and end that
person’s life. The ones to decide such could be family members, doctors and
even courts of justice (BBC, 2013). So, basically these two aspects can be
related with the two classifications of Euthanasia: Voluntary Euthanasia when the sufferer requests and Non-voluntary Euthanasia when some
responsible people adjudge (Young, 1996).
The moral dilemma related with
Euthanasia is to decide whether terminating someone’s life is right or wrong even
though the person might be suffering. The major ethical concern here is how it
differs from murder or suicide. The victim simply dies and we are the ones left
to take the responsibility. Another issue would be if death is the only
solution to the anguish. It is really hard to take an ethical stance on whether
the person’s life is worse than a painless death. Similarly, we should also
consider the fact that people actually may not have much physical suffering but
a major psychological distress is compelling them to take a step towards ending
their lives. This would be like helping someone to suicide instead of
alleviating the pain. So, we never know if our decision was a correct one
considering the uncertainly of what is inside somebody’s mind. Looking from
different ethical philosophers this topic can be interpreted in different ways.
So, let us look in a deeper way.
From a Consequentalist view, we have to
look at the outcomes of deciding to euthanize someone. Therefore a
consequentalist philosopher would think about the possible results of his
decision. So, what can be the results? If we choose to euthanize someone, the
person may get freedom from pain and suffering but we have to face the
questions later. Euthanasia is not legal many countries and it is considered as
“killing” someone when there are, though very small, chances of survival. For
example, in the UK, you can end up in jail for up to 14 years (BBC, 2013). So,
the outcome may be negative for the philosopher should he/she chooses to take
part in euthanasia. In the same way, forgetting the negative aspect for a
moment, there is nothing much to cheer about apart from the mental satisfaction
of helping someone to get rid of pain. Nonetheless, the family and relation
would still be bereaved. Hence, a consequentalist philosopher is less likely to
support euthanasia.
Deontological view puts stress on our
moral obligations and is based on accepted rules to do something. It does not consider
the consequences and takes the decisions if they are morally right thing for
the given context. So, a deontological ethicist would consider morally accepted
standards about euthanasia. If people are voluntarily asking for their pain to
be relieved then it is morally acceptable to help them in any possible way. Even
if it is against law, it would not be an unethical choice to make people free
from unbearable suffering. Likewise, if the family members and the doctors also
feel that an easy death is more likable than painful remaining days, it is
acceptable to euthanize that person. It would make the death of the person more
painless and also relieve much tension from the relatives’ minds. There would
also be satisfaction in all concerned people that the person did not have a
miserable death. Hence, a deontological ethicist would consider the option of
euthanizing a person if that person’s remaining life cannot be made better by
applying momentary medical techniques or medication. From an alternate view, if
a doctor is a deontological ethicist, he/she would have to follow the
Hippocratic Oath to keep the patient alive (ProCon.org, 2013) and hence,
contrary to the general deontological view, it would be morally unacceptable to
kill any of the patient under any circumstance.
Now, looking from the eyes of a virtue
ethics philosopher, the major factors of concern would be benevolent to every
person and posses a good moral character. So, in case of tremendous pain a
virtue ethics would take the decision by being helpful to the person in need. If
the sufferer has the ability to bear the pain and the desire to see out rest of
the life, euthanasia would not be the ethically correct option, as there is no
need to help, even if the person may have considerable distress. On the other
hand, if the sufferer appreciates a pain-free death over a life of misery and
vain, it is absolutely right to euthanize a person suffering from terminal
illness. Hence, for a virtue ethics philosopher, the opinion about euthanasia
depends on the moral principles and virtues to be pitiful to somebody unable to
tolerate torments and aches of a terminating life.
In conclusion, no matter what we say
about it individually using different ethical viewpoints, euthanasia is a topic
which is hard to address from a single side. There are many pros and cons
related with it. Even the same point can be taken as a pro as well as a con
when described with valid reasoning and supporting ideas. Thus, it is best for
all of us to see the complexities of each case of euthanasia separately, as the
context is not same for all of them. Only then, we would be able to justify our
decisions to support or oppose euthanasia.
References:
BBC. (2013). Ethics
of euthanasia - introduction. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/introduction.shtml
Young, R. (1996, April 18). Voluntary euthanasia. Retrieved
from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/
ProCon.org. (2013, December 13). Should euthanasia or
physician-assisted suicide be legal?. Retrieved from http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000126
No comments:
Post a Comment