Bruno+Tomé--Euthanasia,+Moral?

Euthanasia, Moral?- Bruno Tomé

Euthanasia is one of the most delicate moral debates now days. It is translated as “good death” in Greek, but the majority of people aware of what euthanasia is all about consider it to be morally wrong. Switzerland is a country in which active euthanasia is practiced; this meaning that the patient desires to die and commits suicide assisted by a doctor. Cases like this are what bring up debates causing controversy among both sides, whether it is right or wrong, moral or immoral. Euthanasia has cons and pros, as any other moral dilemmas, and even though just thinking about premeditated death might be considered repulsive, the pros have much more weight than what cons could ever do.

Euthanasia offers liberation to someone who experiences excruciating pain, and is actually going to die because of a terminal disease, such as Sue Rodriguez did in 1994 after she was diagnosed Lou Gehrig’s disease. She knew she was going to be a dead woman walking if she decided to actually wait until the disease ended her life; euthanasia was a relief in this case. A person who decides that what is best for him or her is death, should be acknowledge the right to end with his or her life assisted by a doctor. Not permitting this would be considered censuring a person’s freedom of choice, which is what allow us to make our own decisions, whether they are for good or harm. Euthanasia gives an opportunity for people who believe they have nothing else to do in this life to end things for all. It is preferable to commit medical assisted suicide than looking at a smashed body in the pavement, over subway tracks, self-directed gun shot, hanged, or overdosed. Also, in cases in which a patient has over three months of no brain activity and is still connected to machines that keep him/her alive, it is better to let that person go, instead of keeping him/her alive and watching how their relatives suffer knowing he/she might be in that state for ever, and if he/she ever wakes up, he/she will never be the same, which would crush their souls. Euthanasia relives family members economically and emotionally in cases like this.

The person who experiences euthanasia, either wants to die, or is in a state in which he/she cannot decide for him/herself, and a relative decides that what is best for him/her is to let him/her die. Euthanasia is a process in which the patient suffers no pain at all, rather than if the patient decides to continue the medical treatment of a terminal disease, the patient would suffer. Also, being connected to machines makes a person worthless, knowing they will never fully recover. These reasons are why euthanasia should be morally accepted, it is an extra opportunity for those whose best choice is to simply stop living.

There are two types of euthanasia, and both of them can be processed in two different ways. The first type of euthanasia is voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary Euthanasia is when it is conducted with consent, the patient knows exactly what he is going throw and decides to proceed with euthanasia. The second type of euthanasia is involuntary, in which the patient is in no state to be able to decide whether to live or to stop living, meaning the patient is under aged (in some cases), physically disabled (cerebral palsy for e.x.), or in a comatose state. Both involuntary and voluntary euthanasia can be conducted in two different ways, passive or active. Passive euthanasia is when a patient knows he/she is suffering from terminal cancer for example and knows he/she is going to die, so he just stops taking medical treatment and waiting for his death. Another case of passive euthanasia would be disconnecting a comatose patient who requires machines to keep on living. Active euthanasia would be considered when lethal substances are used in order to end a life. Voluntary/active is the most common case of active euthanasia, involuntary/active would be considered murder in some of the cases. The principle of double effect, (which is derived from St. Thomas Aquinas’ Double-Effect treatment on homicidal self-defense), is the main element that stands up for euthanasia, when certain criteria is met, such as affecting a family’s economy by sustaining a person who might never recover, or a person who is going to suffer and die within months, is when euthanasia is morally accepted.

There are certain cases in which letting a person alive is just cruel, below are some cases in which people will realize why death is a better option.

The first case is voluntary-passive. In which a person is suffering from a terminal disease such as cancer, and they know that in a few months they will die, and taking medication will only extend them another few months, isn’t it moral just to let go knowing that medication is prolonging time which means more pain to the patient’s emotions and physique. A person who argues this type of euthanasia might be someone who simply has no respect for life, or has a hard time understanding how a terminal disease can cause a person to desire the worst, which in this case would actually be the best for him/ her.

The second case is involuntary-passive. An example of this would be a person on a comatose state, or more specific, Tracy Latimer, who was a twelve year old who suffered from a cerebral palsy, which is a malformation in spine and cerebrum, enabling a patient to operate as a normal human because of the damage in the motor cortex. Tracy Latimer was unable to talk and recent research tells us those patients who suffer from this type of deformations experience constant pain. Her father, Robert Latimer, decided to kill her because he was aware of what she was going through and she was incapable of deciding what was best for her. Even though she was alive, she was not able to decide for herself, because she was under-aged and had a disability. Her father killed her because she was suffering and she would never be a normal human being, so he practically had no choice, even thought letting her starve to death was a better option than intoxicating her with carbon monoxide. I conquer it was not moral to kill her, letting her die would have been accepted, but keeping her alive would just be cruel. Other example might be someone in a comatose state. In this cases is what is best for the family, if they want to keep the patient alive and can afford, they should, but if they cannot afford it, I think there is no other choice than disconnecting, which is not immoral at all since they can’t affect their economy for someone who is never going to recover because of the lack of brain activity.

The third case is voluntary active. In this case a patient just wants to stop living. For example Sue Rodriguez knew she was going to die, and even with medication her death would be painful. So she decided to kill herself assisted by a doctor, which in these cases is preferable because obviously she was deliberately going to end her life, and it is better to do it this way rather than other type of suicide if she was going to do it anyways. If a person does not desire to keep on living, it is her choice, and freedom of choice is a right given to every human being. What is critiqued in this type of euthanasia is the fact that a doctor helps a patient end with their life. In my opinion, that is the doctor’s decision as well, and if the doctor is emotionally capable and willing to help out in this way, I think no one should block or censure him/her because of it.

Objections such as “euthanasia is playing god” are constantly present in the “right” side of this moral debate, but there is an answer for every cons or objection made. 1. Euthanasia devalues human life. This could be easily responded, devaluing human life is letting a person suffer, whether it is emotionally because the person has a poor perception of him/herself, or because the person is passing through hell while they experience excruciating pain because of a terminal disease, that is demeaning human life. Also not allowing a person to do what they believe what is the best for him/her is devaluating human life. 2. A slippery slope effect is played in euthanasia, first only in terminal patients, and now involuntary. The response to this objection would be that letting other relatives to decide whether the patient lives or dies should be a right, because it might affect the family economically, and not in every case the family is able to economically support medical treatment for involuntary patients, so there can be exceptions in these cases. 3. Doctors shouldn’t be involved in assisting or conducting euthanasia. The response for this might be that if a person actually wants to perform assisted suicide means that this person actually wants to die, so it is preferable that the person dies in hands of someone who knows how to perform this kind of procedures, rather than the person throwing him/herself into train tracks, cars, buildings, shooting him/herself, hanging themselves, etc. It is less traumatic for family members, and for people who might presence the act of suicide.

Euthanasia is more a relief than pain to others, even though it is considered morally wrong, it should be accepted because it is up to people to do whatever they feel like it is the best for them, even if it is deliberately killing themselves in any ways or/and means. Whether involuntary or voluntary, passive or active, euthanasia is is delicate, and as mentioned before, there are certain cases in which there is no choice rather than executing it, and even though many people might not be in favor, it was no wrong in it because it causes no harm to anyone, instead it accomplishes the patients desires.

Bibliography: (2006, Nov. 21 ). In // Forms of Euthanasia //. Retrieved Mar. 17, 2010, from [] (2008, Mar. 17 ). In // Sue Rodriguez //. Retrieved Mar. 19, 2010, from [] (2007, Feb. 8 ). In // The Principle of Double Effect //. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2010, from [] (2005, Aug. 16 ). In // Robert Latimer //. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2010, from [] (2003, Sep. 5 ). In // Cerebral Palsy Information //. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2010, from []