Introduction
Over the last few decades, we witnessed extraordinary advances in the psychological and biological studies of humans. Remarkably, neurobiological studies have revealed some of the deepest secrets of brain functions. Relevant to this article is one of the age-old questions; What is it that differentiates us, humans, from animals? When we look at the earliest recordings of various civilizations, there seems to be a strong desire or perhaps a need to answer this question. Many explanations have been put forward in the realm of metaphysics to position humankind among living things. In addition, ample discussions of the topic began with ancient philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. However, metaphysical talks are beyond the scope of this essay; we will focus on the empirical and scientific information available for the essay's purpose.
Psychology and biology both seem to agree that human consciousness distinguishes us from animals—consciousness is defined as awareness of internal and external existence. With such awareness, humanity can control its underlying instincts, albeit not perfectly and at all times. So humankind is a social being somewhat free from restrictions following instinctive social behaviour. That entails the freedom to think, invent, create, and imagine. The outcome is human domination, control and everything in between. Unfortunately, the good news ends here, and many human ethical and moral dilemmas begin.
Many ethical and moral dilemmas are complicated and do not have a simple solution. It is complicated because of its social nature, and there is no escaping it. It is the independent aspects of our social structure, such as law, ethics, human rights, health and religion, that conflict with one another—for instance, the debates on euthanasia, abortion, and capital punishment. The discussions have been going on for centuries. In this short essay, I will argue how euthanasia violates human dignity and how compassion leaves the door open for involuntary euthanasia. Next, I will propose why matters of life and death should not be decisions as human beings we make, hence, why it should not be allowed.
History
I have included this history section in this essay as an extra. Although it goes beyond the suggested word count, I believe it was interesting and an optional add-on to demonstrate the different views and actions taken over the centuries. You may be interested in reading it. The earliest debates have been traced back to ancient Mesopotamian cultures, thought to have originated from 8,000-20,000 B.C. The Fertile Crescent and ancient Jewish culture banned all acts of euthanasia. The ancient Holy Bible forbade any killing; thus, they did not commit euthanasia or assisted suicide. On the other hand, the ancient Assyrians were known to be a brutal culture. The Assyrians practised acts somewhat like euthanasia, but they were not necessarily quick and painless deaths. Later, during classical Greece, from 480-323 B.C., lived one of the most famous philosophers in western culture, Socrates (469-399 B.C.). He voluntarily ended his life, now known as assisted suicide, by ingesting poison. Like many ancient Greeks, Socrates viewed death as a blessing. In fact, it was common courtesy to kill their patients when necessary for their wellness. On the contrary, the prominent physician of ancient Greece, Hippocrates (460-375 B.C.), separated the function of killing and healing with the Hippocratic Oath. It is an ethical code which physicians took and swore never to harm or give a patient poison. In the same era, the ancient Romans followed Christianity adopted by Emperor Constantine, which suggested euthanasia was to be illegal. In addition, they also followed the Greek Oath, which banned assisted suicide. However, also influenced by the pagan religion, if one wished to commit suicide to have a good afterlife, they would fill out an application, and the Roman senate would determine if they were to be granted their wish. Moving forward in time, in the middle ages during the domination of Christendom, from the 11th century to the 13 century, euthanasia, assisted suicide and even suicide itself were considered sins. The ancient beliefs were inscribed in the Old Testament and eventually became laws in most of Europe. They believed the body was the temple of God, and thus, destroying it was sinful. In the 1700s, people started advocating in favor of assisted suicide and euthanasia. Soon after a backlash occurred, the riots stopped, and the idea became unfavorable. The backlash was so severe that even to this day, many countries still have euthanasia and assisted suicide illegal. Only a handful have legalized it thus far, including Canada, Netherlands, England, Columbia, Japan and a few more.
Preservation of human dignity
Those against euthanasia argue it is morally wrong because it violates human dignity and the sanctity of life. One of the most fundamental ethical standards is dignity, also known as the sanctity of life. Keep in mind that these two concepts have differences, but they are along the same lines and interchangeable. To begin, Immanuel Kant made the central idea of his ethic based on human dignity. He says, "generally any rational being exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will, but in all his actions, whether they concern himself or other rational beings, must always be regarded at the same time as an end" (p. 187). By this, Kant means all human beings, regardless of rank or usefulness, have equal worth and dignity. In any circumstance or situation a person finds themselves in, they can never be deprived of dignity. It even applies to patients who are unable to do anything, not even able to breathe on their own. Although one who contemplates euthanasia may feel hopeless and worthless due to their condition, our moral duty is to preserve and respect our and others' dignity as rational beings. Hence, euthanasia may be considered morally wrong because it does not respect the dignity of the individual who wants to go through with it. Carmichael provides a similar argument, but he refers to the sanctity of life instead of human dignity. The sanctity of life is often used in the context of metaphysics and can also be associated with moral topics. It is a principle that explains that all life is holy and sacred and is to be protected and never violated. Carmichael evaluates whether the sacredness of life "prohibits the taking of life absolutely, or whether it allows exceptions in the special circumstances of [euthanasia]" (p. 185). Carmichael refers to absolutists as individuals who believe killing should never be allowed in any circumstance because it violates the sanctity of life. I agree with Carmichael that taking away a life should not be allowed. However, I do not entirely agree with his analogy of self-defence to explain that euthanasia does not violate the sanctity of life. He points out that "absolutists can only oppose [euthanasia] only if they also oppose all cases of killing in self-defence." (p. 186). His argument goes as follows: killing in self-defence is the taking of human life. It should but does not violate the sanctity of life because of the "doctrine of double effect," which means the prohibition of deliberately taking someone's life except when there is foreseeable death but unintended effects. In the case of self-defence, the intent is to take your life away; as a victim, the sanctity of life justifies the killing of the attacker. The attacker plans to take away your life, which would be violating your sanctity. Therefore to preserve yours, you must take away theirs. Carmichael says, similarly, in euthanasia, there is no desire or intent to kill. Instead, it is to control the patient's pain. Carmichael says the intention is to ease the patient's pain, and one can do so by euthanasia. However, if we can look at this differently, the intention is to kill to relieve the patient's pain. There is a significant difference between the two statements. As you can see, euthanasia violates human dignity and life's sanctity, making it morally wrong.
The problems with compassion
One of the strongest arguments for euthanasia is that it is an act of kindness and compassion to end suffering. Although it may sound empathetic and caring, it is essentially placing the feelings of others above the patient's choice. As Carmichael says, "compassion seeks to end suffering, it has no desire to respect a person's wishes in other ways." (p. 186). Notably, if the individual who wishes to go forth with euthanasia does not provoke compassion in others, they would be denied their request. Not only does it compromise the freedom of choice, but it requires the opinions of others who may not understand or do not feel what the patient is going through. Similarly, the individual whose circumstance does provoke compassion but does not wish to go through with euthanasia may not have a voice. Others may assume the patient wishes to proceed with euthanasia because of their immense suffering and pain. It may result in actions being taken on behalf of the patient without their consent, known as involuntary euthanasia. It is considered murder since an individual is intentionally taking the life of another. Although they may have good intentions, it does not matter since, as previously mentioned, it violates human dignity and the sanctity of life. An example demonstrating my point on involuntary euthanasia is the case of Tracy Latimer, which occurred in 1993. Here is a summary of the passage from Carmichael (p. 183). Tracy Latimer was a 12-year-old girl who had severe cerebral palsy. She could not walk, talk, or even feed herself. Her doctors have said she would be in intermittent pain and will need repeated surgery for the rest of her life. Soon after Tracy's surgery was scheduled, her father ended her suffering by killing her painlessly with carbon monoxide. The instance of Tracy demonstrates the vulnerability and the dependence of these individuals. Although Tracy was very young and had an illness, she did not consent. The lifestyle she had was all she had ever known, and possibly she had adapted and enjoyed life despite the distress. Whereas from an outside perspective, it may seem her life is not worth continuing, and the suffering is too great to bear. As Nietzche says, "[one] who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how." The "why" Nietzche refers to is the meaning of one's life. The saying means that once you give sense to your situation, even with immense suffering, it becomes purposeful, and you will strive to keep going. In Victor Frankl's book "Man's search for meaning," he explains further that the meaning of an individual's life is unique and specific. It must and can only be fulfilled by you alone. You can live and die for the sake of your ideals and values. In Tracy's case, she still had the meaning of her life to fulfil. Compassion for his daughter drove Robert Latimer to take her life so she would never have the chance to meet her meaning in life. Thus, compassion goes to two extremes. It can either deny the request for euthanasia or allow for involuntary euthanasia.
Can we decide our sanctity of life?
Without a doubt, each individual has a right to self-determination. As Carmichael says, "the terms of your life should, as far as possible, be for you to decide. [...] so long as you do not impinge on others." (p. 187). We can all agree that we have the right to make our own decisions and live our life. The big question is: do we have the right to decide what sacredness means in our life? Carmichael says, "Yes, life is sacred. But your life is your own, so it is for you to decide what this sacredness means in your own life." (p. 187). I have to disagree with Carmichael's statement, for as I have previously mentioned, the sanctity of one's life should never be violated, even if one wishes for the sacredness of life to be contravened. As rational beings, the moral code requires us to respect all other sacredness of life. For instance, imagine someone came up to you and demanded you to abuse them and enslave them. This individual has the right to request their wishes, but our moral duty is still to preserve their sanctity of life and dignity. If you followed their command, then you would not be following the moral code. Similarly, the patient has the right to express themselves and demand euthanasia, but it does not mean that the physician should grant their wishes. Let us say we can determine what sacredness means in our life and can choose to go through with euthanasia. Will everyone that desires to go through with euthanasia have their wish granted? The example Carmichael gives is: if a depressed 19-year-old decides they want to go through with euthanasia, it is their right to get it, but should we let them? I am sure most of us would agree that life has some rough patches, and it could get better. Victor Frankl describes the loss of hope and courage can have deadly effects on one's wellness and mental health. If one loses faith in the future, they lose their hope, and they give up. Euthanasia is an extreme and unnecessary measure to relieve an individual from their suffering. Carmichael suggests that we could hire qualified psychiatrists to interview the patient to avoid these scenarios and protect the vulnerable. This idea causes yet another problem. It emphasizes the opinions of the psychiatrist rather than the patient, just as the compassion problem explained previously. Instead of allowing the individual who has lost hope to die, Frankl suggests logotherapy. It is a treatment that focuses on the future and finding meaning in one's life. As Frankl says, "striving to find a meaning in one's life is the primary motivational force" (p. 99). Euthanasia violates the sanctity of life; luckily, it is not the only option to get through suffering.
Conclusion
There is no easy solution to some moral and ethical issues in society, such as hot topics like abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia and assisted suicide that periodically dominates the media. We can all wish to have fundamental principles that explain and provide solutions, much like theories put forward in disciplines such as mathematics and physics. However, there is no such luck when it comes to complicated human matters. Issac Newton, with his "Principia of Mathematica" (1686) and the law of gravity, defined the many workings of the universe. Nevertheless, when he lost a fortune as an investor in the stock market, he was reportedly quoted saying, "I can calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness of the people." In his book "The Black Swan" (2007), N.N. Taleb points out the conflicting positions of two major political parties in a western democratic country like the U.S. regarding capital punishment and abortion. Democrats support abortion, and yet they oppose capital punishment. On the other hand, Republican support capital punishment and oppose abortion. Apparently, political parties and the people supporting them pick and choose which life is worth saving. Perhaps Issac Newton was correct; it is madness in some way.
It seems the ethical and moral debate will continue for a few more hundred years due to its complicated social nature. Again, this is what makes us human, after all. What I am trying to do in this essay is to present a rational discussion based on human dignity. Many ethics, such as Kantians, believe human beings should never violate their and others' dignity. Euthanasia does violate human dignity; therefore, euthanasia is morally wrong. Despite that, others believe euthanasia allows the patient to "die with dignity." Furthermore, one of the primary justifications for euthanasia is compassion towards the patient and their family. Two problems arise from this argument. It leaves the possibility for involuntary euthanasia, and the patient's request is denied if their case does not provoke compassion. The last and one of the most debated topics is whether, as human beings, we can decide to end one's life. Some say it is our life; hence, we are granted the right to choose. While others disagree and contend life is sacred and to take it away is a violation.
As you can see, the opinions on euthanasia heavily depend on the individuals' beliefs and values. That is the reason for its contradictions and disagreements. As previously mentioned, our consciousness allows us freedom. The freedom and wisdom we possess help us to make decisions regarding ethical and moral dilemmas. I have argued in favor of human dignity, a humankind value that should never be compromised. I propose euthanasia sneaks through the door of compassion, at times looks pretty convincible, yet it violates human dignity. For this reason, I deduced that euthanasia should not be allowed in a society that values dignity about all human values.
Bibliography
Immanuel Kant. "Excerpt from An Introduction to Ethics " from An Introduction to Ethics, Robert E. Dewey & Robert H. Huributt Ill, ca(S). Macmillan. ©1977, 181-189.
Reproduced with the permission of Macmillan.
Don Carmichael. "Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide " from Democracy, Rights and Well-Being in Canada, Don Carmichael, et al. ed(s). 2nd edition. Harcourt Brace Canada, © 2000, 180-192.
Reproduced with the permission of Harcourt Brace Canada.
Frankl, Viktor E. 1905-1997, Ilse Lasch, Harold S. Kushner, and William J. Winslade. Man's Search for Meaning: an introduction to logotherapy. Boston: Beacon Press © 2006. Print.
Taleb, Nassim Nicholas, 1960- author. The Black Swan : the Impact of the Highly Improbable. New York :Random House, © 2007.
Comments
Post a Comment