Introduction
Killing can be described as the act of taking a person’s life, and typically, people think about doing it without consent. Therefore, the concept of killing is connected with assassination, which is the most widespread thought that individuals have. However, not all examples of taking another person’s life are immoral. Assisted suicide, or euthanasia, is a vivid example of the morally acceptable killing that happens when the individual who wants to die asks for it consciously. Terminal illness and unbearable suffering can make the person ask for euthanasia, which is an example of morally justified killing for the healthcare professional.
Arguments for Euthanasia
Given the unfavorable perception of physician-assisted suicide in the US, a philosophical analysis of euthanasia is crucial to undertake. An ethical framework for the legalization of physician-assisted suicide demonstrates why the prohibition of physician-assisted suicide is incompatible with the natural rights guaranteed to all people (Velleman, 1999, p. 612). This assumption is based on the premise that every individual has the right to make decisions regarding their own body, and assisted suicide is a conscious choice.
In cases of unbearable suffering due to terminal illness, individuals should have the autonomy to choose a peaceful and controlled death. These conditions make the role of the physician and nurse in assisted suicide morally justified from the perspective that they help the person to terminate suffering. The vital detail is that medical advancements cannot permanently alleviate extreme pain and suffering in incurable conditions.
As a result, the patient asks for mercy when they sign the permission for assisted suicide. This situation takes the moral and legal responsibility from the medical personnel who might think they are killing the patient who can continue living (Rachels, 1975, p. 6). In these conditions, the patient has no chance of survival, and they cannot bear physical pain.
The right to control one’s body and life choices is fundamental to personal autonomy. There is an intrinsic connection between human freedom and their perception of dignity (Velleman, 1999, p. 611). It is especially critical in the hospital environment for ill people who cannot function without assistance from the medical personnel and their caregivers. In many cases, only their mental abilities remain in this state, while their physical condition is impossible to bear.
It is possible to discuss euthanasia from the perspective of philosophical theories, such as utilitarianism, that justify these actions. In a utilitarian framework, killing the patient who decided to commit assisted suicide is ethically acceptable. It is an example of reversing the rule that states that one should behave morally to benefit society as much as possible since the community helps them (Kamm, 2013, p.90).
In other words, once the terminally ill person decides to commit assisted suicide, the community can no longer benefit them, and they are therefore no longer under an ethical responsibility to maintain their existence (Kamm, 2013, p. 90). In addition, the person who understands that there are no chances for their survival and they are a burden both for their families and for the healthcare system makes the utilitarian choice to die. The hospital spends resources to support the suffering of the terminally ill person instead of helping another patient who has at least minimal hope of life (Kamm, 2013, p. 91). For this reason, when the nurse or physician participates in assisted suicide, they make the moral action from the utilitarian perspective.
An individual has the right to assisted suicide based on the principle of noninterference. Libertarian philosophers assert that one’s ownership of one’s body and life gives one the final say and power over whether or not one should be allowed to undergo assisted suicide (Dworkin et al., 1997, p. 718). The right of noninterference supposes that people have an unalienable right to suicide that neither the government nor any other individual may take away from them (Dworkin et al., 1997, p. 718).
Therefore, any legislation that forbids assisted suicide can be interpreted as a coercive pathologization of the activities that individuals can engage in to express their free choice. The right to assisted suicide can be viewed as a logical consequence of this statement, considering the right not to get involved directly derives from the general right to make decisions about those issues that have tremendous significance to human well-being. It is explained by one’s desire to modify their death circumstances, and length of life is directly correlated with their overall well-being (Velleman, 1999, p. 617). It suggests that governments that prohibit assisted suicide might be going against the fundamental principles of freedom and preserving human rights.
Therefore, euthanasia, when chosen voluntarily by a competent individual facing a terminal illness, may be morally justifiable as a means to end immense suffering. The nurse or the doctor cannot be accused of killing the patient who makes the conscious decision to end suffering from pain and hopeless terminal illness. Helping this individual to end their life should not be regarded as immoral killing due to the humanistic character of this action and the free will of the patient, who has the right to control their own life and death (Wolf, p. 1989, 13). As the previous research shows, both libertarian and utilitarian points of view support the idea that participating as a healthcare professional in assisted suicide is not killing the patient, and this action is morally right and justified.
Arguments Against Euthanasia
At the same time, the topic of euthanasia is connected with the moral debate, and the opinions on this issue are controversial. It is the highly emotional aspect, especially in the context of human suffering from incurable illness. In other words, an individual decides to end their life when their rational mind cannot be completely objective, and they are under emotions caused by their state. From a religious point of view, participating as a healthcare professional in assisted suicide is synonymous with killing, and it is a sin.
Life is inherently valuable and sacred from the believer’s position, and intentionally ending it, even at the individual’s request, goes against life’s sanctity. For instance, when nurses or physicians who believe in God and regard assisted suicide as a grave sin are obliged to take these actions, they have to go against their moral principles. In addition, when they do not oppose it, they also participate in killing the person (Foot, 2020, p. 5). For these individuals, euthanasia is killing, and there is no moral excuse or justification for the person who takes the life of another human being, even with their permission.
The normalization of assisted suicide has long-term negative consequences. Allowing euthanasia may set a precedent that devalues the intrinsic worth of life. There is a potential for abuse or coercion in situations where vulnerable individuals may feel pressured to choose euthanasia. In practice, it might be the easier option for the person suffering from pain.
However, there are cases when the individual suddenly feels better regardless of the unfavorable prognosis of all doctors. There is always the chance for a miracle that medical science cannot explain, and healthcare personnel have the “positive duty” to promote this idea (Foot, 2020, p. 6). However, when everyone in society is used to the idea of assisted suicide, it becomes an underestimated topic. Consequently, euthanasia is morally wrong as it compromises the sanctity of life and poses risks of unintended consequences.
Euthanasia opponents frequently claim that if physicians could help their patients end their lives, they would start to regard human life less and might even carry out the death of a patient at their discretion out of a narcissistic overestimation of their power. However, experience demonstrates that in nations where assisted suicide has been legal for a sizable amount of time, medical professionals develop a cautious and thoughtful approach to each request for euthanasia (Foot, 2020, p. 7). The information gathered thus far does not paint a picture of cruelty and abuse.
It does not follow that society would regard life any less if euthanasia were permitted for the relief of terminal patients’ agony, where death is just the result and not the objective. A policy governing these choices could be implemented, and a solid checks and balances system could account for this kind of difference. The moral justifications presented here do not lead to the recommendation of cyanide pills that may be purchased over the counter at any chain grocery shop. Healthcare professionals never take lightly the question of whether it is appropriate to seek euthanasia as a feasible option for ending pain (Foot, 2020, p. 7). If society prioritized reducing someone’s physical or mental suffering over maintaining the heart and brain’s mechanical processes, it is more probable that people would grow kinder to one another.
Conclusion
From the perspective of ethics, physician-assisted suicide is not only morally permissible, but it may even be morally required of physicians, given their dedication to a patient’s wellbeing. Many end-of-life patients agonize in silence because the authorities cannot do anything about it. After all, euthanasia is illegal and considered killing a human being. In this case, the decision of the terminally ill patient who has no hope for survival and alleviation of pain is the moral permission for the medical personnel to participate in assisted suicide. Their actions cannot be regarded as killing, and from the utilitarian and libertarian points of view, this help is morally justified.
Doctors already know much about the least painful and most effective ways to end the lives of individuals who require assisted suicide. Patients who are terminally sick are entitled to request euthanasia before the development of severe symptoms. It is only relevant to patients who, in the absence of therapy, will undoubtedly pass away and go through excruciating pain as a result of their sickness. It is possible to imagine a doctor who chooses to take a moral stand against euthanizing a patient who is suffering from such a disease and instead chooses to let them pass away. In that case, such a choice is less moral than imposing therapy upon the patient.
References
Dworking, R., Nagel, T., Nozick, R., Rawls, J., Scanlon, T., & Thomson, J. J. (1997). Assisted suicide: The philosophers’ brief. The New York Review of Books.
Foot, P. (1981). Killing, letting die, and euthanasia: a reply to Holly Smith Goldman. Analysis, 41(3), 159–160. Web.
Kamm, F. M. (2013). Bioethical prescriptions: To create, end, choose, and improve lives. ONP.
Rachels, J. (1975). Active and passive euthanasia. The New England Journal of Medicine, 292(2), 78–80. Web.
Velleman, J. D. (1999). A right of self-termination? Ethics, 109(3), 606-628. Web.
Wolf, S. M. (1989). Holding the line on euthanasia. The Hatings Center Report, 19(1), 13-15. Web.