FREE ESSAY ON EUTHANASIA

EUTHANASIA

Kathleen M. Foley, author of Competent Care for the Dying Instead of
Physician-Assisted Suicide, 
believes doctors should develop treatments for the physical and psychological problems
of
dying patients 
rather than helping them commit suicide. Available data suggests most physicians do not
receive training 
in the care of dying patients. Dying patients experience physical symptoms such as pain,
psychological 
problems such as anxiety and depression and existential distress (described as the
experience of life without 
meaning.)(1) many of the physical and psychological problems can be treated. 
Furthermore, legalization 
of physician-assisted suicide may deter physicians from developing treatments that could
enhance the dying 
patient's quality of life. 
Euthanasia by definition means a gentle and easy death, the good death of another
or mercy 
killing.(2) There are two types of euthanasia currently recognized, active and passive
euthanasia. Active 
euthanasia is the taking of one's own life, or being killed, for example, by lethal
injection. 
Passive 
euthanasia is taking one's life with the assistance of another or just being allowed to
die. 
In passive 
euthanasia we simply refrain from doing anything to keep the patient alive, for example,
refusing to 
perform surgery, administer medication, give heart massage or use a respirator and let
the
patient die from 
whatever illness is already present. It is important to understand the difference,
because
many people 
believe that active euthanasia is immoral and passive euthanasia is morally all right.
They
believe that we 
should actually never kill patients, but sometimes it is all right to let them die. 
The main issue then is it morally permissible to kill or let someone die who is going to
die soon anyway, 
at the person's own request, as an act of kindness? 
Throughout history, many people have thought that the distinction between active and
passive euthanasia 
is morally important: and many of those who condemned active euthanasia raised no
objection against 
passive euthanasia. Even by people who believed killing to be wrong, allowing people to
die by not 
treating them was thought in some circumstances to be all right. Even before Christ,
Socrates was quoted 
as saying,  ...bodies which disease had penetrated through and through he would not have
attempted to 
cure...he did not want to lengthen out good-for-nothing lives.(3) In the centuries that
followed, both the 
Christians and the Jews viewed allowing to die in circumstances of hopeless suffering,
morally permissible. 
It was killing that they adamantly opposed. 
The Pope, stating the position of the Catholic Church, said it is acceptable to allow
the
patient who is 
virtually already dead to pass away in peace.(4) In a statement published in 1982, the
American Medical 
Association echoes the feeling of the Catholic Church saying,  we remain firm on our
stand against mercy 
killing, but allowing patients to die (in some circumstances) is all right.(5) So it
seems,
there is 
widespread agreement that passive euthanasia is morally all right (in at least some
cases),
but active 
euthanasia is much more controversial. 
In essence what we seek is whether euthanasia active or passive is moral, or whether it
is immoral. To 
discover the truth we must examine the arguments or reasons that are given for or
against
it. If the 
arguments in favor of euthanasia are persuasive and the arguments against 
it can be rejected, then it is morally acceptable. And likewise, if after careful
analysis we
find a strong 
case against euthanasia, we would have to conclude it to be immoral. I think this is
true
not only of 
euthanasia, but of any moral issue. 
The single most powerful argument in support of euthanasia is the argument of mercy. 
The main idea of 
this argument is simple. Terminal patients sometimes suffer pain far beyond our
comprehension. This 
suffering can be so terrible that we cringe at the descriptions of such agony. The
argument
for mercy says: 
Euthanasia is justified because it puts an end to that. It is not important to give gory
details
of the suffering 
of the terminally ill, but it is important to keep these visions vividly imprinted in our
minds
so we can 
appreciate the full force of the argument for mercy. If a person prefers and even begs
for
death as the only 
alternative to lingering on in this kind of torment, only to die anyway after a while,
then
surely it is not 
immoral to help this person die sooner. As Stewart Alsop (a respected journalist) stated
prior to his death 
from a rare form of cancer in 1975, No human being with a spark of pity could let a
living
thing suffer so, 
to no good end.! 
 (6) 
In the case of voluntary euthanasia, great suffering is eliminated, and since the
patient
requests it, there is 
no question of violating that individuals human rights. If an action promotes the best
interests of everyone 
concerned, and violates no one's rights, then that action is morally acceptable. In some
cases, active 
euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone and violates no one's rights.
Therefore,
in at least some 
cases active euthanasia is morally acceptable. First and most important is the interest
of
the patient. If 
chosen, euthanasia would provide the individual with an easier, better death, without
pain. 
Secondly, the 
interests of the family members should be considered. Their misery, helplessly watching
their loved one 
suffer, must be almost equal. Thirdly, the interests of the medical staff must be
considered. Their 
attentions would be better focused on patients that can be helped. Lastly, other
patients
would benefit as 
medical resources wo! 
uld no longer be used for the pointless maintenance of a terminally ill patient.
Considering
all this, how 
can active euthanasia in this case be wrong? How can it be wrong to perform an act that
is merciful, 
benefits everyone concerned, and violates no one's rights? 
The Golden Rule states, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.(7) The
basic idea is that 
moral rules apply to everyone without exception; therefore, you can not say you are
justified in treating 
someone in a certain way unless you are willing to be treated that way if the positions
were
reversed. How 
does this apply to euthanasia? Someday we will all die, although we do not know when
or how. For the 
sake of this argument suppose you were told you would die in one of two ways and had
to choose between 
them. First, you could die quietly and without pain by lethal injection. Or secondly,
you
could choose to 
die from a disease that caused excruciating pain and reduced the body to a point were it
was unrecognizable 
while your family watched helplessly. It is hard to believe that any sane person,
confronted with these 
possibilities, would choose to have a rule applied that would force the to take the
horrible
death. Then if 
we would not want a rule which ex! 
cludes euthanasia applied to us, we should not apply it to others. 
And what happened to our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness? Each dying 
patient should be free to choose euthanasia or reject it, simply as a matter of 
personal liberty. The government should not have the right to tell another what choice
to
make. If a dying 
patient wants euthanasia, that is a private matter. Being the life belongs to the
individual,
the individual 
should have the right to decide. People should be free to live their lives as they think
best. 
Of course 
liberty is not without restrictions. For example, we should not be free to murder, rape
or
steal. So why are 
certain restrictions placed on our freedom while others are unacceptable? The answer is
simple: personal 
freedom should be limited when it causes harm to others. 
Terminally ill patients should have the right to choose active euthanasia as a morally
acceptable and 
legal choice. The morality of euthanasia is supported by such maxims as the Golden Rule.

Euthanasia (in 
some cases) serves the interests of everyone concerned: it is mercy to the patient,
relieves
emotional strain 
on family and friends and conserves finances and medical resources. If doctors are
forbidden from 
providing a painless death to their terminally ill patients who request it, this is an
unjust
restriction on the 
patients personal freedom. These ideas are hard to accept, but deserve consideration. 
The idea of 
deliberately killing someone goes against the very core of our morality. I am not
suggesting that the value 
of life be taken lightly, nonetheless, I believe in the most tragic cases euthanasia
should be
permissible.