J.CAY_WILilAMS
The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia
(Source:
Reprinled t'rom Ronald Munson Ied.J, Intervention and
Reflection: Basic lssues in Meclical Ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Contpony. copyright @ rgg2 by Ronald Munson. Repnnted
with
permission.)
My lmpresston ts that euthanasla-the idea, if not
the practice-is slowly gaining acceptance within our
society C;.'nics might attribute this to an increasing
tendency ro devalue human life, bur I do nor believe
this ls the major factor. The acceptance is much more
likely to be the result ol unthinking sympathy and
benevolence. Weil-publicized, rragic stories like rhar
of Karen Quinlan elicit lrom us cleep feelings of com_
passion. We think to ourselr,es, ',She and her family
would be better off if she were dead.,, It is an easy
step from this very human response to the view that
if someone (and others) would be better ofl dead,
then it musr be al1 right to kill thar person. Although I
respect the compassion that leads to this conclusion.
l believe the conciusion is wrong. I wanr to show that
It rs inherently wrong, but it
is also wrong ludged from the standpoinrs ol self,
euthanasia is wrong.
interest and of practical effects.
Before presenting my arguments to support this
clarm, it would be well to define ,,euthanasia.',
euthanasia.
It is important to be clear about the deliberate and
rntentional aspect of the ki1ling. If a hopeless person
is given an injection of rhe wrong drug by mistake
and this causes his death, this is wrongful killing
but not eurhanasia. The killing cannor be the result
of accident. Furthermore, il the person is given an
in¡ection of a drug that is believed to be necessary
to treat his disease or better his conditton and the
person dies as a result, then this is neither wrongful
killing nor euthanasia. The intention was to make the
patient we11, not ki11 him. Similariiy, when a parienr's
condition is such that it is not reasonable to hope
that any medical procedures or treatments will save
his life, a failure to implement the procedures or
treatments ts not euthanasia. If the person dres, this
will be as a resuk of his in¡uries or disease and not
ol his lailure ro recerve treat ment.
The failure to continue rreatment after it has been
because
An
essential aspect of euthanasia is that
it involves tak_
human life, either one's own or rhat of another.
A1so, the person whose lile is taken must be someone
who is belleved to be suffering from some disease
or injury from which recovery cannot reasonably be
expected. Finally, the action musr be deliberate and
intentional. Thus, euthanasia is intentionally taking
the life of a presumably hopeless person. Whether
ing
the life is one's own or that of another, the taking of
lt is still
realized that the parient has little chance of benefitting from rt has been characterized by son-re as
"passive euthanasia." This phrase rs misleading and
mistaken. In such cases, the person involved is not
killed (the firsr essential aspect of eurhanasia), nor is
the death of rhe person intended by the wirhholding of additional rrearmenr (the third essenrial aspecr
a
of euthanasia). The aim may be to spare the person
319
320
Rights and Responsibilities
additional and unjustifiable pain,
.
Euthanasia and Phy sician-Assisted Suictde
[L] save
him from
the lndignities of hopeless manipulatr'ons, and to
avoid increasing rhe financial and emotronal burden
on his family When I buy a pencil it i's so that I can
the
use it to wr1te, not to contribute lo an increase tn
unintended
the
be
may
This
gross national product.
Ior-rr.qr-,.r-t.. of my actton, but it rs not the atm ol my
action. So it is wrth farling lo continue the treatmenl
of a dying person. I intend his death no lnore than I
intená to reduce the GNP by not using medical sup"pasplies. His is an uninlended dying, and.so-called
sive eurhanasia" is not euthanasia at all
l.
The Argument from Nature
Every human being has a natural inclinaLion to continuá living. Our reflexes and responses liL us to light
attackers. flee wlld animals, and dodge ouL ol the way
of trucks. ln our daily lives rve exerctse lhe caulron
and care necessary to protect outselves Our bodies
are similarly structured for survival right down to
the molecular level. When we are cut, our capillaries
seal shut, our blood clots, and librogen is produced
to start the process of healing the wound When we
are invaded by bacteria' antibodies are produced to
fight against the alien orgamsms, and their temains
ur. t*áp, out of the body by special cells designed
for clean-up work.
Euthanásia does violence to this natural goal of
survival. lt ls literally acting against nalure because
all the processes of nature are bent tou''ards the end
of bodily survival. Euthanasra deleats lhese subt1e mechanisms in a way that, rn a particular case'
disease and injurY might not.
It is posslble, but not necessar)¡, to make an appeal
to revealed religion rn lhis connection Man as trustee
of his body acts againsl God, its nghtlul possessor,
lile
He also r'-iolaies the comand never to take it
sacred
mandmenl to hold life
Bul since thrs
cause
without just and compelling
are prepared
r'r'ho
those
appeal will persuade only
truths, I
revealed
to
has
access
to accept that religion
when he takes hrs own
shall not employ this line of argument'
It is enough, I beli.eve, lo recognize that the orga-
nization of the human body and our patlerns ol
behavioral response s make the continuation ol hfe a
natural goa1. By reason a1one, lhen, \\'e can recognLze
that euthanasra sets us against our own nature Furthermore, ln cloing so, euthanasia does violence lo
our dignrt¡'. Our dlgnity cc¡mes from seeking our
encls. When one of our goals is survival, and actions
are taken that eliminate that goai, then our natural
dignity suffers. Unhke animals, we are conscioLts
thiough reason of our nalure and our ends Euthana-
il this dual nature-inclination
au'areness of this as an
and
tou'atc1s survival
euthanasia denies our
Thus,
end-did not exisl.
sia inr,lolves acting as
basic hui¡an character and requires that we regard
outselves or others as something less than fulLy
human.
2. The Argument from Self-Interest
The above arguments are'
I
believe, sulficient to
show that eulhanasia is inherently wrong But there
are reasons lor consid ering it wrong lvhen .ludged by
srandards other than reason Because death is final
and irreversible, euthanasia contarns u'ithin lt the
possibiliLy that we will work against our own interest
il r,ve practrce it or allow it to be practiced on us
Contemporary medicine has high standards ol
excelience and a proven record of accomplishment'
but lt does not possess perfect and complete knowledge. A mistaken diagnosis i.s possible' and so rs a
mistaken prognosis. Consequentl¡ we may believe
clyit-tg of a disease when, as a matter of
that we
^re
facL, u,e may not be We may think that lve have
no hope of recovery when, as a matter of lact, our
chances are quite good. ln such circumstances, if
euthanasia were permitted, we would die needlessly
Death is finai and the chance of error too greet to
approve the practice ol euthanasia.
Also, there is always the possibtlity that an expenmental procedure or a hirherto untried technique will
pull us through. We should at least keep thrs optlon
open, but euthanasia closes it off Furthermore,
sponlaneous remisslon does occur in many cases
For no appalent reason, a patient simply recovers
when those ail around him, including his physrcrans,
expectecl him to die. Euthanasia would Just gLlaraniee therr expeclations and leave no room {or the
"miracuious" Lecoveries that frequentiy occur'
Finall¡ knowing that u'e can lake our life at any
time (or ask another to take it) might well incline us
J. Gay-Williams
to give up too easily. The will ro live is srrong in all
of us, but it can be weakened by pain and suffering
and feelings of hopelessness. Il during a bad time we
a11ow ourselves to be killed, we never have a chance
to reconsider. Recovery from a serious illness requires
that we light for it, and anything rhar weakens our
determination by suggesting that there is an easy way
out is ultimately against our own lnterest. Also, we
may be inclined towards euthanasia because of our
concern for others. lf we see our sickness and suffering as an emotional and financial burden on our
famil¡ we may feel that to leave our life is to make
their iives easier. The very presence of the possibility
of euthanasia may keep us from surviving when we
might.
3. The Argument from Practical
Effects
Doctors and nurses are, for the most part, totally
committed to saving lives. A life lost is, lor them,
almost a personal failure, an insuit to their skills
and knowiedge. Euthanasia as a practice might well
alter this. lt could have a corruptrng inlluence so
that ln any case that is severe doctors and nurses
might not try hard enough to save the patient. They
might decide that the paiienr would slmply be "better off dead" and take the steps necessary to make
that come about. This attirude could then carry over
to their dealings with patients less seriously i11 The
result would be an overall decline in the quality of
medical care.
Fina11y, euthanasla as a policy is a slippery s1ope.
A person apparently hopelessly i11 may be allowed
to take his own 1ile. Then he may be permitted to
deputize others io do it for him should he no longer
be able to act. The judgment of others then becomes
the ruling factor. Aiready at this point euthanasia is
. The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia
321
not personai and voluntarl', for others are acting "on
behalf of' the patienr as they see fir. This may weil
incline them to aci on behalf of other patients who
have noi authorized them to exercise their.ludgmenr.
It is only a short step, then, from voluntary euthanasia
(self-inflicted or authorized), to direcied eurhanasia
administered to a patient who has given no authorization, to involuntary euthanasia conducted as part
of a social policy. Recently many psychiatrists and
sociologists have argued that we define as "mental
i11ness" those forms ol behavior that we disapprove
of. This glves us license then to lock up those who
drsplay the behavior. The category of the "hopelessly
i11" provides the possibility of even worse abuse.
Embedded in a soci.al pollcy, it would give sociery or
its representatives the authority to eliminate all those
who might be considered too "i11" to function normally any longer. The dangers of euthanasia are too
great to all to run the risk of approving it in any form.
The first slippery step may well lead ro a serious and
harmful fall
I hope that I have succeeded in showing r,vhy the
benevoience that inclines us to give approval of euthanasia is misplaced. Euthanasia is inherently wrong
because it violates the nature and dignity of human
beings. But even those who are not convinced by this
must be persuaded that the potentlal personal and
social dangers inherent in euthanasia are sufficient to
forbld our approving it elther as a personal pracrice
or as a public policy
Suffering is surely a terrible thing, and we have a
clear duty to comfort those in need and to ease their
suffering when we can. But suffering rs also a natural
part of life with values for the individual and for orhers that we should not overlook. We may legitimately
seek for others and for ourselves an easeful death.
Euthanasia, however, is not just an easelul death. It
is a wrongful death. Euthanasia is nor jusr dying It
ls killing.
322
Rights and Responsibílíties
.
Euthanasiq and Physician-Assisted suicide
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTlON
l. Why
does Gay-Williams object to the phrase
3.
"passive euthanasia"?
Gay-Wi1liams argues that euthanasia ls unnatural'
ln what way? How does this argument lead to the
moral conclusion that euthanasia is wrong?
4.
Can euthanasia ever be in a patient's self-interest,
according to Gay-Williams? Do you agree?
What is Gay-Williams's "slippery slope" argument? How Persuasive is it?