Kyle Pizzichili
Contemporary Moral Problems
Dr. Miller
4/22/14
Is Voluntary Euthanasia Moral?
I.
Secondary Source Analysis
There has been an ongoing debate about voluntary euthanasia and if it should be
legalized. Doctors, philosophers, and countless others also continually debate the morality of it
as well. Fist I must establish the three different types of euthanasia: voluntary euthanasia, nonvoluntary euthanasia, and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is when a competent
person suffering from a terminal illness requests death rather than suffering in pain when nothing
medically can be done to “heal” or “cure” the individual (Young, 1). Non-voluntary euthanasia is
when the person is not competent and unable to make a decision themselves, therefore passing
the judgment to the individuals parents or family, also known as the proxy (Young, 1). And
involuntary euthanasia is when a person who is competent has their life ended even though they
had shown a clear opposition to the action (Young, 1). Both voluntary and non-voluntary
euthanasia deal with the wishes of the patient, whether it is the individual or their family whom
make the decision. Then there are two subgroups for each type of euthanasia, active and passive.
Active euthanasia is when the doctor actively engages in a lethal injection or something that
requires the doctor to take action (Rachels, 484). Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, is when
the treatment is terminated or “the plug is pulled” and the individual then eventually passes away
from the terminal illness they have (Rachels, 485). Many people are against euthanasia of all
types. The amount of different situations that could arise in reference to euthanasia is endless and
each situation could require a different plan of action. I personally believe that voluntary
euthanasia should be made legal because in extreme situations where the patient has no way to
be cured of their terminal illness they should be able to decide to pass away honorably rather
Page | 1
than suffer endlessly until their disease or illness eventually takes them. It is unmoral to deny
anyone of this decision, for it is their right to decide to do what they will with their life.
In “Voluntary Euthanasia” written by Robert Young, he outlines five conditions for
candidacy for voluntary euthanasia, as well as discusses five objections to voluntary euthanasia.
Young also discusses the historical background of voluntary euthanasia, where he points out that
only the Netherlands, Belgium, and Oregon have laws in place that can allow voluntary
euthanasia to be implemented (Young, 5). Although the author never comes out and states his
stance on the issue at hand, he does throughout this piece, however, indicate that he supports the
legalization of voluntary euthanasia in extreme hardship. It should be indicated that situations of
extreme hardship are those that requires a patient to be “unacceptably dependent on others,
technological means, or life support” due to a terminal illness or disease (Young, 2). If an
individual is suffering from a terminal illness, unable to benefit from a cure or there is no cure,
has intolerable pain and lives a life that is unacceptably burdensome, is competent and has a
voluntary wish to die, and is unable to commit suicide, “then there should be legal and medical
provision to enable her to be allowed to die or assisted to die” (Young, 3). Young has a great
point that a terminally ill individual who is competent should have the right to still have dignity
and control in their last moments and dying wishes, which relates to the Kantian concepts of
dignity and respect (Young, 4). Why let someone suffer when in the end, no matter how far
down the road, the same result will occur. If a patient has cancer, for example, and it has spread
past the point of treatment and they desire to be assisted to die rather then suffer in pain and
slowly deteriorate away, then they should be granted that wish. Sometimes terminating lifeprolonging treatment is not to help the patient die in peace, but it is to eliminate unneeded pain
and suffering the individual would endure when the treatment would be useless (Steinbock, 491).
Page | 2
This is different from passive voluntary euthanasia because that is essentially the act of letting
someone die. Sometimes there is no medical treatment that would be beneficial at all to the
patient, and therefore treatment would be suspended. Of course treatment could be
readministered at any time that the health care professional would deem it necessary and
beneficial to the patient.
Young discusses that many patients wish “to die on their own terms and in their own
time” which I believe to be completely true and these patient’s wishes should be respected
(Young, 5). It is believed that passive voluntary euthanasia is more acceptable morally because
the patient is allowed to die once the life-prolonging treatments have been ceased, and on the
other hand active voluntary euthanasia is not considered morally acceptable because it is in a
sense an act of killing (Young, 6). However, Rachels disagrees with this statement because of the
fact that he believes in a quick an easy death compared to one that has prolonged pain and
suffering and states, “active euthanasia is actually preferable to passive euthanasia” (Rachels,
485). I personally believe that each statement could be valid depending on the circumstances the
particular patient is in. For example, if a patient is attached to a respirator and urges to be
removed from it because he/she suffers from an incurable disease and is then granted this wish,
then this passive voluntary euthanasia is most acceptable. But in another case a patient could
have a type of terminal cancer or disease where withholding treatment would not help them die
and only would prolong the agony that individual would be in until death. In this case, if the
individual has passed the five conditions for candidacy in regards to voluntary euthanasia and
they urge the doctor to aid them in dying because of the ongoing pain and burdensome life they
endure then active voluntary euthanasia might be the best option (Young, 6). A patient could also
refuse life-prolonging medical treatment because they deem it useless. There are far too many
Page | 3
circumstances, diseases, and conditions that could arise with every patient and each person’s
story and medical conditions differ. It is hard to say what is acceptable in each situation without
analyzing all of the factors that come into play and also respecting the wishes of the patient
themselves.
Rationality, morality, and autonomy are the most important factors to be considered when
any individual is making a decision regarding euthanasia. But one must also look at that person’s
particular values and morals as well to fully understand the individual and help them arrive at the
best possible outcome for them. In conclusion, I believe that voluntary euthanasia, both passive
and active, should be made legal as long as it is closely regulated. I also believe that it is immoral
to attach a human being up to a machine that is keeping him alive only to just prolong a patient’s
death. The emotional toll and strain that family members and even employees of a medical care
center must go through each day watching this person suffer and slowly deteriorate is cruel. If it
was me I would want my family to remember me as the human being I once was, not as someone
who is simply being kept alive by a means of life support. But as I said before, the situations
where voluntary euthanasia could be an option are endless and health care professionals must
take their time with the decision and come to consensus that it is the best thing to do (all hope
being lost) for that particular patient.
II.
Final Paper Plan
1. I plan to use the following articles from our assigned readings:
“Active and Passive Euthanasia” by James Rachels, “The Intentional Termination
of Life” by Bonnie Steinbock, “Assisted Suicide: The Philosophers’ Brief” by
Ronald Dworkin, et al., and “Euthanasia: The Way We Do It, the Way They Do
It” by Margaret P. Battin.
Page | 4
2. Secondary sources that I plan to use in my final paper are:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – “Voluntary Euthanasia” by Robert Young,
“Voluntary Active Euthanasia” by D. Brock, and “The Future of Assisted Suicide
and Euthanasia” by N. Gorsuch.
3. My working thesis for the final paper is:
I agree with the advocates of voluntary euthanasia and believe it should be
legalized because every human being should have the right to choose to die with
dignity and should be respected autonomously to make their own decisions that
doctor’s must assist them in completing.
4. Counterargument:
All acts of “killing” and “letting die” should be made illegal including euthanasia.
One must not refuse medical care to let themselves die because it is unmoral to
not try and preserve one’s life.
Page | 5
References
Rachels, James. 1975. “Active and Passive Euthanasia.” May, Larry, Wong, Kai, Delston, Jill
editors. 2010. Applied Ethics: A Multi-Cultural Approach, 5th edition. p. 484-488.
Prentice Hall.
Steinbock, Bonnie. 1979. “The Intentional Termination of Life.” May, Larry, Wong, Kai,
Delston, Jill editors. 2010. Applied Ethics: A Multi-Cultural Approach, 5th edition. p.
489-494. Prentice Hall.
Young, Robert. 2010. "Voluntary Euthanasia.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Summer 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/. Accessed April
16, 2014.
Page | 6