Francisco Estrada Professor Hennise Philosophy 250 12 November 2024 Issues in Medical Ethics; Is Euthanasia, Passive and Active, Immoral? Imagine you are in immense pain with every breath you take, there is no chance of survival for you even with the help of the best doctors on the planet. Would you ask to be euthanized to end your suffering? Whether it is by lethal injection, overdose, refusal of care, or assisted suicide. It is a tough decision to make, and not everyone will choose that route. Some will choose to fight for their life until the last breath, and some will choose to take that last breath on their own terms. This paper will explore the complex ethical issues that are presented when it comes to euthanasia, both active and passive. I find euthanasia to be morally permissible when it is done correctly. You and I have rights when it comes to medical treatment, and one of them is autonomy. If we look at a Utilitarian’s ideology, one will believe that “Action or inaction that leads to death is correct when it alleviates suffering and promotes the general welfare and better feelings (utility).”(Chapter 10, Section 3) A Kantian Deontologist would believe “…people are autonomous rational moral agents are not to be treated as a means to any other end than themselves”(Chapter 6, Section 3). According to a Utilitarian, the right to refuse care or take an action to die is given to rational persons and should not be infringed upon. While a Kantian Deontologist would not agree with active euthanasia, they would support passive euthanasia. Rational and informed people deserve to make their own decisions on their medical care, this includes active and passive euthanasia. While rational people are allowed to make their own decisions on medical care, rational persons giving medical care are allowed to make their own decisions on the medical care they give. So, while people are allowed to choose to participate in passive or active euthanasia, doctors can choose to not participate in active euthanasia. This is what I mean by euthanasia is morally permissible when it is does correctly, if a rational person chooses to die by active or passive euthanasia and a rational doctor allows them to die or prescribes them a lethal dose of medication then it is morally permissible. We should not be forcing doctors to participate in active euthanasia if they do not want to, but we should also expect them to respect the wishes of people who want to participate in active and passive euthanasia. Some people may be against euthanasia, specifically active euthanasia, due to religious reasons. To this I say that each person is allowed their own views based on religion, and if your religion says that euthanasia is morally impermissible, you have every right to choose to not participate. You have no right to tell others it is morally impermissible to participate just because your religion says so. Your religion does not give you the right to enforce your religious beliefs on others. It does give you the right to make moral decisions for yourself based on the religion you follow. If your religion does not allow you to participate in active or passive euthanasia, then you do not have to. I would not force a follower of Islam to eat pork because my religion says it is okay to eat. This is a violation of religious freedoms and autonomy. I believe that forcing your views on euthanasia on everyone due to religious reasoning is a violation of religious freedoms and autonomy of others. Another right we have discussed in this course has been the right of informed consent. I believe that this plays a huge role in the morality of euthanasia. The patient has the right to know and fully understand the extent of dying. It is permanent; there is no undoing it. Rational adults will be able to understand this, but a child will not. We have discussed euthanasia of children in this course, and I believe that is morally impermissible. Children cannot understand the concept of death, and therefore cannot be given the right of informed consent in the topic of euthanasia. Kantian Deontologist would agree with this take, as it requires a person to be rational to make decisions and have autonomy. For our final topic we will talk about active euthanasia specifically, as I feel that passive euthanasia is less controversial and generally socially accepted. Many might think of active euthanasia as being equivalent to murder. This is not the case; it is assisted suicide at the worst. Let’s take a hypothetical situation, a 22-year-old male is in the last stages of cancer with no hope of recovery and is in immense pain daily even with pain medications. He asks his doctor about euthanasia, and the doctor informs him of the consequences and asks him to think more about it. The patient returns months later and still wants to follow through with his request. The patient has informed consent and is a rational functioning person with no mental issues. It is morally permissible for the doctor to prescribe the man a lethal dose of medication or even administer the dose. This is not murder; it is assisted suicide. The doctor did not kill the man will ill intent, he was simply following the wishes of his patient. It was an act of compassion and mercy. Some might say suicide is wrong, why is it wrong? Because of your God or the ‘natural order’ of things? These are circular claims with no basis in fact, just your views. I say they are circular claims because the very thing you are trying to prove you already assume to be true. You assume there is a God that thinks suicide is bad, yet you already believe it to be true anyway. Where are the facts that God thinks suicide is immoral? Other than God’s word in the Bible, which comes from prophets and people who already believe in a God that thinks suicide is bad, there has been no facts presented to me for why suicide is bad due to religious reasons. You have every right to not commit suicide, you cannot tell someone else it is wrong. It is their body and their life; they have the right to do as they please. Therefore, I believe that active euthanasia is morally permissible but, on a case-by-case basis. The patient needs to have informed consent and be a rational person. Euthanasia is a controversial topic, but I believe that the right to die should not be infringed upon. Whether by active or passive means, every rational and informed person deserves to have this option available. There should be laws in place to protect against malpractice, but it should not be illegal to be assisted in dying. I think that there should be restrictions such as the laws in Oregon (Oregon's Death With Dignity Act (DWDA)) to protect doctors and patients, but it should not be outlawed. You and I already have the right to fight for our lives, but we also deserve the right to choose when we take our last breath. Works Cited Pecorino, Philip A. Medical Ethics. 2002 Oregon Health Authority. https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/EVALUATIONRESEAR CH/DEATHWITHDIGNITYACT/Pages/faqs.aspx. Accessed 12 Nov. 2024.
