Research Paper on Euthanasia: An Ethical Issue that Divides Societies

Introduction

Euthanasia has emerged as an ethical issue that divides societies. It involves a process of assisted suicide where a healthcare professional ends the life of a terminally ill patient to free them from pain and suffering. Some people refer to the act as ''mercy killing" to sanitize it because it often aims at individuals whose deaths would end their plight (Carrick, 2012). Physicians perform this action at the request of the patients who wish to die in dignity. However, there are certain occasions when the patient is too sick to make this decision. In such cases, the matter may be delegated to families, courts, or medics to decide on behalf of the patient. The specific controversy that assisted suicide raises is whether it is ethical or unethical to end life when faced with difficult situations.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Proponents have argued that society is obligated to respect the patient's right to autonomy. In this case, they say that euthanasia should be conducted at the patient's request to save him or her from pain, suffering, and burden (Carrick, 2012). According to nursing ethics, it is morally right to respect the decision of the patient. Supporters have argued on this basis, stating that it is ethical to perform euthanasia if the patient is suffering.

Palsule-Desai and Ravichandran (2010) have supported this argument by outlining that disallowing euthanasia not only denies the individual right to self-determination but also forces patients to suffer against their will. They claim that leaving patients to suffer is a cruel act and a negation of human rights and dignity. Everyone has the right to live with dignity. In this context, Keown (2018) argues that when the state of a person's existence falls, then, he is free to end such torturous existence. When this occurs, healthcare providers should consider relieving individuals from pain instead of preserving life.

In contrast, opponents of euthanasia have had a strong argument against the act. They view euthanasia as a euphemism for murder and hold the view that physician-assisted suicide does not guarantee a person the right to die, but the right to kill. They argue that professionals in the healthcare field have strict obligations that outlaw killing, and maintain that euthanasia does not comply with the role of nursing.

Indeed, medical professionals are trained to do everything they can to resuscitate the patient rather than ending their lives. Their obligation to the patient is relieving pain and suffering. In this view, Paterson (2017) has argued that doctors who perform assisted suicide violate Hippocratic Oath that they cite upon graduation from a medical school. They swear not to give a lethal drug to any person if asked or advise such decision. Conducting euthanasia implies that the medical professional has broken the Oath that guides then to practice medicine ethically.

The following sections provide arguments for and against medically assisted suicides by applying three ethical theories, namely; divine command theory, Kantian ethics, and Utilitarianism.

Divine Command Theory

Divine command theory states that morality is dependent upon God, and the moral obligation is consistent with obedience to God's commands (Carrick, 2012). In other words, this theory suggests that an action is morally right if it is approved by God, and is morally wrong if it does not follow God's commandments. It draws ethics from the commands and teachings of God. In this perspective, divine command theory criticizes physician-assisted suicides because the act is against God's command.

From a Christian perspective, euthanasia is similar to murder which is condemned by God in the Ten Commandments. Committing suicide or helping someone perform the act is determined as murder. In this case, medically-assisted death is a sin because it is against God's command. As such, it is wrong to conduct physician-assisted suicide according to the theory of divine command.

Another argument from the Christian perspective that justifies divine command theory is that God gives all life. Romans 6:23 says, "for the wages of sin is death, but God's gift is eternal life in union with Christ." God gave life, and the life of everyone belongs to Him. Equally, birth and death are part of the processes in human life created by God, which people should respect. Therefore, no one has the authority to take the life of another person even if the individual wants to die. Taking life or helping someone commit suicide is against God's moral teachings.

Another argument is that euthanasia destroys God's image in human beings. As Keown (2018) puts, human life is sacred and precious because it was created in the image of God. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 says, ''do you know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and who was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourselves but God. He bought you for a price, so use your body to glorify God."This verse shows how human life is valuable.

Being created in the image of God indicates that human beings have a unique ability for rational existence that enables them to see what is right and what is evil. As individuals develop this knowledge, they live a life that resembles God's presence of love. In this perspective, there is a need to preserve life to enable people to live in a Godly way. Therefore, proposing physician-assisted suicides is like rendering life as worthless, which is against God's teachings. Such a judgment destroys the dignity and worth of a person to be killed.

According to God's teaching, assisted suicides oppose His will. Biblically, no one has the right to end life because the human body belongs to God. An individual should live full life granted to him by God and die naturally when God chooses to take the person's life. The divine command theory maintains that morals come from God. He has created laws and morals for people to follow and obey. For that reason, practicing assisted suicide is unethical because it is against the teachings and commands of God.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism theory states that an act is morally right if its outcome creates happiness for the person (Carrick, 2012). Similarly, an action is wrong if it promotes sadness. Utilitarians have argued that an individual having assisted suicides may want to die because of pain and suffering. The person is happy with that decision because he thinks that death will relieve them from pain, thus, promote pleasure. Family and friends of a terminally ill person may also find joy and relief after learning that the person decided to die and is free from pain.

Not only does this decision relieve the patients from pain and suffering, but it also releases the family and friends from the burden. This theory holds that many people, both the victims and the family of a terminally ill person, find happiness from assisted suicide (Paterson, 2017). In this view, utilitarians support the practice of assisted suicide, claiming that it is ethically upright since it promotes happiness.

Utilitarianism can also justify assisted suicide based on how utilitarians perceive human life. According to classical utilitarians, life is valuable because it is through it that people experience happiness, hopes, desires, and pleasure (Carrick, 2012). However, utilitarians cannot attribute value to all humans because all lives cannot be values based on utility. Therefore, in a classical utilitarian perspective, life is worth only if it has positive utility, and is unworthy if it has a negative utility (Keown, 2018). These utilitarians believe that a surplus of happiness over pain and suffering makes life to have a positive utility.

On the contrary, a surplus of pain and suffering over happiness makes life to have a negative utility. Simply stated, a person's life is worth when they are experiencing happiness, and is unworthy when they are undergoing extreme pain. In this context, the theory justifies assisted suicide based on the condition of the patient. That is to say; it is morally upright to conduct euthanasia on those with more pain than happiness because their life has negative utility. Therefore, through assisted suicides, they will be relieved from pain.

Those who are against utilitarianism claim that people may find it easy to decide what is right or wrong, depending on their feelings. However, it is hard for people to predict their feelings or the consequences of such action (Palsule-Desai & Ravichandran, 2010). For instance, predicting that one will have happiness after death may be difficult. How does an individual know he or she will be happy after death? Religious people believe in life after death, but what about non-believers? Will assisted-suicide still be the right decision? Non-utilitarians have argued based on these questions. According to them, assisted suicides do not correlate with happiness.

Kantian Ethics

Kantian ethics is a deontological ethical theory developed by Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher. This theory states that an action is right if the principle behind it is based on moral law (Kant, 2017). According to this theory, the maxim of action dictates whether or not that act is right or wrong. If the maxim behind the act follows the moral law, then the action is right.

Alternatively, the act is wrong if the maxim behind it is not based on moral law. Kant (2017) also held the view that human beings are rational creatures by virtue. As such, they are bound to the requirements of reason such as rationality and morality. He further argues that to have moral worth, an act must originate from the motive of duty. An action motivated by duty receives its moral value not from the results, but the maxim.

Under Kantian ethics, assisted suicide is wrong because it violates the moral law. According to Kant (2017), killing is wrong. In this case, assisted suicide is similar to murder, which is unethical. In forbidding killing and assisted suicide, the theory is conflating respect for humanity by stating that ending life undermines personhood. Kant (2017) further argues that humans as a rational being. Because of this, no one has the right to formulate an action that leads to death because the person is in a terrible condition. This kind of maxim does not form universal law. Because it does not create universal law, it is wrong. Since the maxim is wrong, assisted suicide is unethical.

Additionally, Kant (2017) argues in his theory that humanity is an end, not a means to an end. If this is the case, then, no one has the right to take life regardless of the situation. Instead, it is imperative to act in ways that do no harm or disrespect human nature. Allowing euthanasia is an act of disrespecting self and others. Kant (2017) also reasons that nature gives humans a feeling of self-love to enjoy life and promote it. He views the promotion of life as through self-love as a law of nature. He then argues that using self-love against life influences the practice of euthanasia, thus, contradicting the moral law. Since the law cannot contradict itself, promotion of death through self-life is a violation of the law of nature, which is wrong. Therefore, euthanasia is wrong.

Individual Stance

From an individual perspective, assisted suicide is a wrong practice due to various reasons. Firstly, it destroys human dignity. Death is a natural process of human nature, and nobody has the authority to decide when to die. Secondly, physician-assisted suicide can be open to abuse because it would not only be for the terminally ill patient, but also for people who are not seriously ill. Anyone who is not willing to endure pain and suffering may request for euthanasia even if their conditions can be cured. Thirdly, it is unethical for doctors to participate in assisted suicide because the a...