Essay on Is euthanasia morally or immorally?
Formerly, if a person was seriously ill, he was either recovered or died. There were only two colors in perspective: white and black. But today the situation is quite different. Nowadays a doctor is able to block the person’s road to heaven and doom the own patient on the life with an incurable disease, even if there is no road to recovery. In this regard, the question whether or not to prolong the person’s life without any hope of a cure appears in all its acuteness in contemporary society. Is it important to continue a life without the possibility to be engaged in usual activities, creativity, socializing with the own friends, a life without pleasure, without joy, and sometimes even without emotions? Thus, we are going to explore the question about moral side of euthanasia.
At the beginning, we can mention that the main problem of euthanasia is in its definition. The word consists of two parts, when its first part means ‘good’ and ‘pleasant’, while its second part meant the concept of ‘death’. In such a way, the meaning of the term “euthanasia” depends on the person’s position: it can be “compassionate homicide” or “merciful (nice) death”.
To continue, the main question is in people who can take responsibility for the decision to subject the patient’s euthanasia. The search for the answer to this question lead us out of the field of medicine and lead to the general arena of law, ethics, philosophy and theology. It is a well-known fact that a function of the doctor is to assess the patient’s condition and the likelihood of cure as accurately as possible (Gorsuch, 2006). Everything further is a scope of morality, and other authorities should speak in this area. If the doctor is not the same expert in the field of ethics, he should not be allowed to become simultaneously a judge, grand jury, and often an executioner.
Observing the ‘pros’, we see that there are the three arguments in favor of euthanasia, in general. The concept of mercy is in the basis of the first of them. Every person (according to the human nature) feels empathy for another person who is suffering. Thus, it is not important to continue the life full of sufferings and torments. The second argument is based on the right to privacy. If my friend enters my apartment and breaks my new set of chairs every day, I will bring an action against him. However, if he does it at home, I’m not going to interfere. The same situation has a place with the person’s body. According to Baird and Rosenbaum, many people consider that human body is a highly personal, private property, and nobody, besides the person by himself, has the right to decide what to do with it (Baird and Rosenbaum, 1989). In essence, this approach does not deal with the question of moral or immoral sides of euthanasia. Its supporters (and those who signed the own “living will”) can objectively consider the problem of euthanasia unsolvable, or even to condemn it in terms of ethics. Nevertheless, they argue that everyone has the right to decide to live or to die, and if someone wants to kill the own body, which is the highest degree of personal property, then no one can resist this step. And finally, the third argument shows that the life must necessarily be of high quality. The supporters of this approach agree that it is right that society attaches great importance to human life, but they are also sure that it is impossible to ascribe some meaning of life to the patient lapsed into a coma, a monster-baby, or “human-plant”.
Thinking about the “cons”, it is possible to note that the first and the third of the above presented arguments opposed to the main principle: human life – is sacred. Observing the second argument in this context, we can mention that indeed, the human body is the personal property, but it is also true that every moral person rejects suicide (Keown, 2002). It is possible to suppose that there are some situations in which suicide can be justified, but whether people would be able to help someone who decided to commit suicide.
Exploring the main dilemma of the issue we see that currently, people are guided by a wide variety of motives in their choice. For example: to what extent they are willing to sacrifice their comfort, their own interests and pleasures for the sake of committing an act that is considered morally necessary. In the case of euthanasia the question is about the extent to which the person is ready to sacrifice personal beliefs for the purpose which is found to be morally justified. Compassion and respect for human life come here in irreconcilable conflict in this situation. As a result, the person cashes a clash between two points of view: if I prefer to save the life of my neighbor, I will condemn him to the long-suffering; but if I want to save him from these sufferings, it is necessary to interrupt his life.
Thus, taking everything into consideration it is possible to conclude that the question whether euthanasia is moral or immoral has no right answer, and continues to be one of the most doubtful issues in our society, and the main dilemma also continues to exist.
