My Reply

Dear SW,

My reply (in blue) to our *ahem* academic debate....

(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.
-->
I totally agree with you on this point as I have 'jumped the gun' in my discussion about euthanasia. I deliberately omitted to discuss both active and passive euthanasia. Well, blog post... not thesis writing... so malas a bit mah! Btw, thanks for the clear definition.....

(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?
-->
YES
So long as he is competent, his wishes should be respected.
Autonomy triumphs.

(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.
-->
In this context, I am therefore proposing for healthcare practitioners to give rise to living wills and perhaps, to a certain extent allow for PAS (physician assisted suicide). The individual, in giving rise to his wish for euthanasia (in the future), would do by means of a living will. Don't think that there's a conflict in my arguments as such. Expression of feelings and intention is done when he had 'testamentary capacity', so as to allow for PAS in the future.

The main purpose of wills (as we learnted from our Wills & Probate lectures... if we managed to stay awake ;) ) is to give rise to the intention of the testator upon the occurence of an event. In giving rise to this intention, so long as one has testamentary capacity, the individual's intentions as to how his property is to be divided amongst the intended beneficiaries ought to be respected, and not questioned.

Likewise, in giving rise to PAS, the individual's wishes would be documented. And when his condition reaches the point when he no longer wishes to continue on living, the physician ought to invoke the said living will and administer a dose of lethal injection so as to ease his passage.....

-LV-
PS: Not really thinking straight right now, so arguments might be a bit patchy and all over the place... We shall battle it out in class tomorrow! :P