Euthansia; or in some cases referred to as 'mercy killing' often brings about mixed reactions from different sections of the society. I had an opportunity to reconsider this issue recently and am still of the view that competence is the key.
An interesting point that I recall from my Philosophy classes is that some individuals may contend that life is a gift from God. And as such, we have no right to request for it to be ended, no matter what.
But, should anyone of us be put in this unfortunate position of suffering from a severely debilitating illness, without any hopes for cure but only a slow road to death; would you think differently? You will gradually lose control of your bodily functions, and although able to think and reason, are unable to express your wants and needs. You lose your ability to earn a living and as a result of this illness are heavily dependant on machines and drugs to sustain life. Your family is unduly burdened with your sky-high medical bills. You are not able to do anything, but sit or lie down and watch the hours/minutes/seconds tick by everyday. Would you then champion for the right to end your life?
I must stress at this point that, I am not an advocate for euthanasia per se. But, I believe in autonomy and competence. And all these would inevitably tie in with the right to euthanasia, abortion and to refuse medical treatment. So long as a competent person decides to end his life due to the severely debilitating illness, his/her decision should be respected. *period*
Why? You may ask.
Three simple answers.
Regardless of whether we consider our lives to be that of ourselves alone or that which is 'on loan' from God. We will be the ones who would inevitably live these lives. Therefore, it is only rightful that we are allowed to live the lives we desire. Should we decide to soldier on with the effects of the illness, so be it. Should we decide to end our lives at a certain point, so be it.
BUT
This is by all means, not to be taken as an express sanction of suicide. Though the end results to suicide and euthanasia are similar, they are by all means, different sides of a coin.
Put in simple words; "Your life, Your choice"
Secondly, taking a leaf out from John Harris's book, "The Value of Life". Life is only meaningful when one is aware and able to communicate. Language is used as means of expressing one's feelings. It need not be spoken and comprehensible to each and every person. The inability to communicate is then synonymous to a life devoid of meaning, so says John. (I just love attending his lectures, though I bet people like Iain would surely be gunning for his head for his arguments above). Put into context, this argument may seem academic at first glance. But upon further consideration, I find it increasingly comprehensible; reasons of which I decline to talk about further at this point.
Would it be easier to turn off the ventilators of a person in PVS in comparison to a patient who is suffering from a severely debilitating disease? Think, Diane Pretty and her fight for the right to die.
And lastly, he/she is fully competent i.e. understands the nature and consequence of his/her actions. IF we respect a 5 year old's decision to have an apple instead of an orange, why should we treat a 60 year old's decision not to be trapped in a battle with a severely debilitating disease? I think it is neigh time for us to respect Living Wills and DNR orders.
Opinions please....
-LV-
Friday, February 22, 2008
Would You Choose to Die?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Some points to think about:
(1) You mentioned about a patient who is heavily dependent on drugs and machines for survival. There are major differences between an ‘omission’ act like withdrawing the consumption of drugs and switching off the life- machine, compared to a ‘killing with an action’ like asking someone to strangle him or stab him till death. The patient in the first category is allowing the ‘disease’ or ‘illness’ itself to kill him ‘naturally’ by withdrawing from any external help for survival, which is in some sense similar to a cancer patient who refuses to undergo chemotherapy (and we don’t usually call that ‘euthanasia’). But the latter is equivalent to a suicidal act by deliberately accelerated the process of dying. The two forms of ‘euthanasia’ would need separate discussions regarding the different ethical issues attached to them.
(2) You mentioned also that ‘euthanasia’ is different from an express sanction of suicide. Let consider a hypothesis example of this teenager who is an outcast from his societies, despised by all people in his surroundings and find life extremely meaningless and hence decided to commit suicide. Applying your three ‘reasons’ of why euthanasia should be allowed: (a) the teenager should be given the choice to live the life he desires, including ending it; (b) he is deprived of his means of communications (though in a different sense) in that he is an outcast and no one is willing to listen to him, and (c) he understands the nature and consequences of his action. Question: should he be allowed to take his own life away?
(3) There are some conflicts between the second and third reasons that you mentioned. I wonder how a competent adult manage to express his desire to die if he is not able to communicate. And if he is able to express such desire, it means that he is still able to express his own feelings, and hence according to your second reason, his life is not meaningless. So he shouldn’t be allowed to die.
Have a good day!
Post a Comment