It is the authorsa€™ intention to argue that s Essay

This essay has a total of 1643 words and 8 pages.


It is the authorsa€™ intention to argue that some forms of euthanasia, to be exact,
passive nonvoluntary and in exceptionally rare cases indirect euthanasia are morally
permissible. However it must be noted that due to the limit of words and more importantly
the authorsa€™ lack of experience surrounding euthanasia, the claim of permissibility
reflects that of the authorsa€™ recent course readings and my emergent experience
thereof. In addition to this it must also be noted that euthanasia cannot be evaluated
exclusively. That euthanasia unquestionably is connected with the very questions that
endeavor to understand life and death. My arguments descend from articles written by
authors such as; Rachela€™s, Steinbock, Beauchamp and Foot.

It is essential that one defines euthanasia in terms of the a€˜good of the
subjecta€™ or that a€˜death is no evil to hima€™ . For if euthanasia was to
mean simply a€˜a quite and easy deatha€™ or a€˜the means of procuring
thisa€™ as the ancient Greeks supposed an ambiguity with awkward consequences results.
Foot uses the example of a murderer, careful to drug his victim, claiming on apprehension,
that his act was merely euthanasia. Euthanasia therefore must be a benefit to the subject.
This point is imperative in understanding the permissibly of the two forms of euthanasia
which I regard moral . Therefore euthanasia, in this essay, will be defined as bringing
about the death (foreseeable or unforeseeable) of another with the intention of preventing
needless suffering. Where suffering is unbearable physical pain associated with a
terminally ill patient or a comatose person unable to regain consciousness.

The first form of euthanasia that I deem permissible is a€˜passive nonvoluntary
euthanasiaa€™. Passive nonvoluntary euthanasia (henceforth simplified as passive
euthanasia) occurs when a patient dies due to either, a medical profession not performing
a certain action that would keep the patient alive, or abstaining from an action that is
keeping the patient alive. An example of the earlier would be switching off life-support
machines or disconnecting a feeding tube. And examples of the latter would include not
carrying out life-extending operations or withholding life-extending drugs.

There are two reasons why I suppose this permissible. The first is beneficence due to the
loss of autonomy. Autonomy is defined as the "the right of self government or personal
freedoma€� . Here personal freedom is defined as the means to consciously and
rationally attain a desired end. Personal freedom then is a prerequisite of the right of
self government. Self government here is synonymous with a€˜able to make
choicesa€™. Passive euthanasia allows patients to die when the process of death has
already begun but cannot continue due to extraordinary means preventing this. Continuing a
life in which a human being is present but a person is not, or to put that another way,
when a person has lost his autonomy, his life is of no use to either himself, his family
or society. The right thing to do in a situation such as this is to let the subject die.
This may perhaps dismay the reader. However I believe this panic is due to how people
define death. Death is viewed as a terrible thing because human life is intrinsically
valuable. Whether this be due to a religious reason or otherwise. In addition to this most
reasonable people enjoy life to some degree and dona€™t want to die. And if the person
be religious, life and death are God\'s business with which we should not interfere. One
can see then that if death is not a bad thing many of the objections to this form of
euthanasia disappear.

The second reason why I consider passive nonvoluntary euthanasia morally permissible,
results from the argument of Non-maleficence. This argument closely allies, though not
quite the same, with that of the pervious argument, beneficence. The consequent of relying
or extraordinary mean for survival results in the domino effect from the "prolongation of
living into the prolongation of dying" . This again seems to derive from an intrinsic fear
of death by dire definition. When we extend the process of death we are doing no good to
the subject in question. To live as long as technology and modern medicine can keep us,
even when we know that the chance of regaining consciousness is naught, to me is wrong if
not unnatural. Death is inevitable. It is part or every life. And so it seems to me that
if death comes knocking on your door and you open it, then decide to slam it shut (by
means of life-support machines), death will always find another way to welcome itself
home. Therefore it becomes more of an evil to prolong the inevitability of death. And
morally acceptable to end life under such circumstances.

The other form of euthanasia that I judge morally permissible is that of indirect
euthanasia. Indirect euthanasia is defined as providing treatment (usually to reduce pain)
that has the side effect of speeding the patient\'s death. Since the primary intention is
not to kill, this form is also morally permissible. It must be noted here that this
particular form of euthanasia is morally permissible when that small percent of patients
do not respond to palliative care. And only ever considered when consistent with the
Continues for 4 more pages >>