The Ethics of Euthanasia Essays

The Ethics of Euthanasia Essays The Ethics of Euthanasia Essay The Ethics of Euthanasia Essay In the text, Death and Dignity: A Case of Individualized Decision Making, Diane had undergone Euthanasia (known also as mercy-killing). She gave her informed consent and she willingly submits herself to the process. In short, she had agreed to undertake â€Å"voluntary euthanasia.† Voluntary Euthanasia is defined as the type of Euthanasia that is undertaken with the informed consent of the patient herself. Informed consent means that the patient understands the process in which she has to go through, accepts it, and submits herself completely.In the case, Diane had given up the idea that she could still be cured. She had acute leukemia. Knowing that such disease had no cure at all, she refused to be treated and even demanded to be allowed to just die. The physician, who was the very person who was narrating the case of Diane, revealed that she herself assisted Diane in undertaking euthanasia. She said that she even told Diane the right dosage of barbiturates which could bring her death. Having such scenario, it could also be said that there was an â€Å"active euthanasia† that was happened. This entails that the physician has indeed assisted the death of the patient.The Ethics of EuthanasiaEuthanasia has long been disputed for its moral position. Does it morally permissible or not? The problem in the arguments of those who advocate the moral permissibility of euthanasia is that they tend to categorize it into different types and classes. The notions of voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, and active and passive euthanasia, have really masked the true essence of the practice of euthanasia. Some say that active and involuntary euthanasia are not morally permissible while inactive and voluntary euthanasia are morally permissible. The latter is argued because of the ideas of â€Å"non-commission† and â€Å"informed consent.†On the other hand, there is no real difference between those types and classes. According to James Rachels, no mat ter what type of euthanasia is performed still the end result is death. And that is morally unjustifiable in the sense that there is no such thing as right to die but only right to life. Likewise, in an ordinary course of life, no one would really claim for his or her right to die. Thus, whether the patient has given his or her informed consent, there is no justifying basis for the commission of euthanasia.Also, as mentioned in the text, the physician had even assisted the death of the patient Diane. That was very unethical. In the first place, physicians have no right to take away one’s life (as for the active euthanasia). And speaking of duty, physicians’ duty is to promote life and never the reverse of it which is death. By appealing to the Kantian Ethics (ethics of duty), that physician has committed a wrong act and has acted unethically and immorally. Thus, the physician in the given case must not have assisted Diane’s death whatever her reasons are.Moreove r, the process of euthanasia is directly going against what the natural process says. Suffering is part of human’s life. Thus, if one would use it to support and justify the act of euthanasia he is like saying that the natural process – wherein life is the basis of all rights – should not promote life but death. Yet, this is not the case. Survival is the key concept in the natural process. This entails that at any course, man naturally and rationally invokes his right to life and not right to die.Should Euthanasia be legalized?The answer is no. Euthanasia is no easy issue with regards to its legalization. In the first place, there is no law and even constitution that would provide a human rights standard which includes the human being’s right to life. As mentioned earlier, there is no such thing as right to life. And speaking of law, it has been institutionalized to safeguard mankind’s survival. So it is illogical and unintelligible to advocate for the legalization of euthanasia having the fact that such process opposes the most fundamental right – the right to life.Furthermore, if euthanasia would be legalized, it seems that the law itself creates chaos in the society’s order. As we all know, physicians are tasked to cure and treat diseases. Their duty is to preserve life (as declared in the Hippocratic Oath). If euthanasia would be made legal, then it is as if the law is allowing the physicians to violate their sworn duties and responsibility to mankind.Informed consent cannot really be used to justify the commission of euthanasia since the patient may have given his or her consent only because he or she is desperately hopeless and only wants to avoid suffering. But in a normal situation, a person would not really give his consent to someone to murder him or her.Another point is that, when someone speaks of morality, he or she is not speaking of practicality but of necessity. Rights such as right to life are n ecessary so as to uphold humanity. Imagine, if practicality would be the standard for taking away one’s life then it is more likely that every person would have reason to kill other person because it is practical for them to annihilate others for their own advantage. As for the case of the physician in the story of Diane, she assisted the death of Diane because she believed that it is more practical having the latter dead than for her to severely suffer from the disease.As for the conclusion of this paper, euthanasia is never necessary and not beneficial primarily because of the fact that there is no such thing as right to life, and the fact that physicians’ duty is to uphold life and never of death. Plus the law itself is established on the premise that its implementation is for the protection of human rights – and that includes a person’s right to life.