The study of Bioethics involves the consideration of ethical issues arising from advancements in medicine and/or biology. The study of bioethics helps with determining the proper decision in regard to medical or biological issues. Bioethics is highly influential in academia, where scholars investigate the various scenarios arising from advancements, but is also influential in the applied realms of biology and medicine. Albert Jonsen, in his book Bioethics, claims “This field has established itself as an integral part of practical or applied philosophy and as a valuable adjunct to health policy and medical practice” (Jonsen 4).
When dealing with the human body, ethics must be considered in order to preserve the value of human life. A highly controversial issue in bioethics today is euthanasia. Euthanasia is highly controversial because in each case the subject chooses either life or death. In my paper, I make an argument for active euthanasia, which involves intentionally ending another’s life for the better. Euthanasia, commonly referred to as “assisted suicide,” is allowed in five of the fifty states and in many countries across the globe (Barone).
The Netherlands was the first country to legalize assisted suicide. While strict regulations control the process, over 3,100 people in 2010 chose to undergo euthanization in the Netherlands (Cendrowicz, Leo). California, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington have all legalized assisted suicide, with California being the most recent of the five through the “End of Life Option act” passed in 2015 (State Guide to Physician-Assisted Suicide -Euthanasia). All of these states, excluding Montana, have a legal protocol for undergoing the euthanizing process.
First, the patient must be at least eighteen years old, expected to die within the next six months, and request assisted suicide from a physician twice, with one written request. This process allows one to make sure he truly wants to undergo the process. After legalizing Euthanasia in a (5-4) state supreme court decision, Montana has yet to implement a mandated protocols in the euthanizing process (State Guide to Physician Assisted Suicide -Euthanasia). Before evaluating the controversies surrounding euthanasia, one must understand the process itself.
Definitions of euthanasia abound in the medical community. John Keown in his book Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy: An Argument Against Legalisation, creates a succinct definition of euthanasia based on various understandings of the process, “Euthanasia involves doctors making decisions which have the effect of shortening a patient’s life and these decisions are based on the belief that the patient would be better off dead” (Keown 10). One often sees manifestations of euthanasia on the death beds of those close to death.
Doctors, loved ones, or the patient himself decides that it is better to be dead than alive. However, a major distinction must be made between active and passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia occurs when physicians refrain from keeping a patient alive with life-sustaining technology or medicine (Medical News Today). This is the “pulling the plug” example, commonly referenced today. Passive euthanasia is typically less controversial than active euthanasia, being that instead of taking a direct action to end one’s life, a physician chooses not to perform a particular act.
Usually manifested in the form of a fatal prescription or injection, active euthanasia involves intentionally ending another’s life. Referenced earlier, The U. S. and the Netherlands both use “active euthanasia” classified as “A mode of ending life in which the intent is to cause the patient’s death in a single act (also called mercy killing) ” (Medical News Today). Active euthanasia is highly controversial and many still classify it as regulated murder. Active euthanasia allows patients to die on their own terms. For many, death is a grim experience.
As one’s body begins to dwindle, they lose the capacity to think, feel, or do the simplest of tasks. As their mind and body start to fade, they can slip into a pre-mortem depression. One of the most common reasons one might request assisted suicide is because of “depression, which reflects the patient’s frustration and despair” (Levy, Azar, Huberfield, Siegal, and Strous 406). Euthanasia can be offered as an alternative to this slow and painful deterioration. Instead of dying on a hospital bed with a defibrillator on your chest, one might choose to die in the comfort of their own home surrounded by those they love.
Terminally ill cancer patients might choose euthanasia as an alternative to the grueling and painful last months of cancer treatment. Instead of slipping into overwhelming sickness, one might choose to leave the world looking and feeling like herself. In France, a woman was filmed buying euthanizing drugs and being escorted to her home surrounded by flowers and family (Dallas Bueller). Before she takes the fatal medication, she is seen eating her favorite chocolate for the last time and kissing her loved ones. She takes a pill and dies peacefully with a smile on her face.
While this scene might be grim to some, others might view it with reassurance and become encouraged. Terminal patients might choose euthanasia to alleviate their family’s burden. Whether financially or emotionally, prolonged dying can prove incredibly detrimental to all of those involved. In a study conducted in 2000, 89% of patients said not being a burden to family was a very important consideration (Chantagul, Ho, 254). Typically very costly, medical treatment can financially cripple a family. A patient might rationalize euthanization but saying his death serves a greater good for his loved ones.
A patient nearing death might also think it is better for him to die than have his family be so emotionally taxed by procedures prolonging the dying process. Euthanasia can offer a relief to a patient worried about causing his loved ones to suffer, giving the patient more peace in death. However, opponents of euthanasia use familial suffering as a reason why euthanasia should not be legalized (Barone). One might argue that patients can be pressured into taking their lives. Certainly, one is the master of his own life and should make decisions accordingly.
Arguably one should never feel pressured to take his own life on the basis of another’s well being. For many, active euthanasia serves as a solution to suffering. In the final stages of dying, patients tend to suffer insurmountable pain. Reportedly, “40% of patients experience severe pain most of the time during the last 3 days of life” (Lyn, Joanne). How can one argue that a terminally ill patient must suffer incredible pain in their final hours? Euthanization might allow one to die with dignity instead of writhing on a hospital bed.
Opting out of this pain acts as a final exercise of personal control. In an article on suffering and Euthanasia, Ashley Fernandes makes reference to Dan Brock in arguing, “since one of the crucial goals of medicine is to relieve suffering of the competent patient who requests it, pain or suffering that does not lead to a greater good in the eyes of the patient, serves no point, and therefore must be eliminated” (Fernandes 258). However, for some, suffering even in life’s concluding hours serves a greater good. The Catholic Church offers credible opposition to the argument for euthanasia.
One of the main reasons that Catholics oppose euthanasia, is because man is meant to find meaning in suffering. Garcia in his work Sin and Suffering in a Catholic Understanding of Medical Ethics argues that suffering, “Offers a special perspective, suffering lets us see past a person’s accomplishments to comprehend the Other’s essence in her basic shared humanity as Christ’s sister or brother, and as the Father’s daughter or son” (Garcia 176). Suffering serves as a common ground between people. No matter who you are or where you are from, in suffering, your humanity is exposed.
What makes us most human makes us most beautiful. Viktor Frankl, a holocaust victim, and prominent psychiatrist argued, “The way in which a man accepts his fate and all the suffering it entails, the way in which he takes up his cross, gives him ample opportunity-even under the most difficult circumstances-to add a deeper meaning to his life” (Frankl 88). Thus, the argument can be made that suffering even in light of death is meaningful. The Magisterium of the Catholic church argues, “Life is a gift and human beings may not decide it” ( Liegeois 74).
For Catholics, life is given from God and man has no right to decide his own fate. By choosing for another to die, man plays the hand of God. In Liegeois’ Article, Euthanasia and Mental Suffering, he speaks for the church in saying, “The sanctity of life and the dignity of the person are the basis and condition for all goods and values” (Liegeois 74). Based on the catholic understanding of the sanctity of human life, euthanization devalues human life, leading to a decline in value and goodness.
The arguments for active euthanasia seem to outweigh the arguments against euthanasia. Active euthanasia allows critically ill patients to make a choice. Patients can choose to die in a dignified and painless way, knowing they can leave the world without being burdensome on their loved ones. William Ernest Henley said in a poem, “I am the master of my fate,/l am the captain of my soul” (Henley). Active euthanasia gives one the opportunity to choose his own fate for the greater good.
