Doctors and Philosophers Debate: Should Active Euthanasia be legal?

1









Doctors and Philosophers Debate: Should Active Euthanasia be legal?
By: Sarah McMahon
Final Term paper: Medical Ethics
5/6/14









Doctors and Philosophers Debate: Should Active Euthanasia be legal?

2
A patient is terminally ill and because of this illness they have been left
paralyzed from the neck down. There is no known cure to their disease, the patient
asks the doctor calmly to take away their life because there is no way the patient
will come away from this disease alive, the doctor must refuse the patient because it
is illegal to kill a patient knowingly so the patient waits for death in their paralyzed
state. Doctors, Philosophers, and every-day people have never agreed on weather
active euthanasia should be legalized or whether it should be banned.
Active, voluntary euthanasia is different from assisted suicide in a few ways.
The act of active, voluntary euthanasia is one where the patient has given competent
consent to this action and the physician must be the person to actively kill the
patient. This type of euthanasia does not rely on any factors other then the natural
functions of the body (I.E. the blood stream carrying a toxic substance through the
body). This type of euthanasia is actively killing the patient rather then letting the
patient slowly die. Assisted suicide can also be voluntary or involuntary but the
physical act of killing the patient is left up to the patients themselves. This debate on
active, voluntary euthanasia is a controversial debate for doctors and philosophers
alike because the act of killing the patient is left up to the doctor.
One of the questions people need to ask themselves is weather or not
euthanasia should be available for completely autonomous people. This question is
difficult to answer because of the differences in the phrase fully autonomous
person. A person who is fully able to make his or her own decisions in a competent
and unclouded manor should be able to ask for active, voluntary euthanasia. To
decide if someone is fully autonomous is a difficult task with many different
Doctors and Philosophers Debate: Should Active Euthanasia be legal?

3
deciding factors. Factors like weather or not the patient is in an unclouded mental
state make it difficult to decide weather or not they are autonomous. When people
are in intense boughts of pain they are more likely to beg for release from it, these
requests for euthanasia should not be considered because they are mentally
unstable at the time of the request. When considering a persons autonomy for
euthanasia doctors must be prepared to assess weather a patients is calm and not
under mental stress. If a doctor cannot tell if a patient is under mental stress a
physiatrist should be consulted and even in some cases brought to the patient for a
mental assessment.
Doctors should not only assess the autonomy of the patient but the severity
of their patients case as well. Both patients who are terminally ill as well as patients
who will have a severely diminished quality of life should have active, voluntary
euthanasia. Patients who will die in an extreme pain and prolonged suffering should
be able to ask to be euthanized. Euthanasia for terminally ill patients should be legal
because of a few factors. Euthanizing those who will die in severe pain before they
get to an overly painful state not only frees a patient from suffering, which is one of
the cardinal rules followed by American doctors, but it also frees up time for doctors
to give other ill patients who have a chance of surviving more extensive care. Being
able to euthanize those terminally ill patients who ask to be euthanized will give
patients who are not terminally ill the ability to be offered more technology and
more time with doctors because these technologies and doctors will not be given to
other patients who wished to be euthanized.
Doctors and Philosophers Debate: Should Active Euthanasia be legal?

4
If the quality of life for a patient is also severely diminished the patient
should be able to ask to be euthanized. Cases like Elizabeth Bouvias where she was
not terminally ill but Her cerebral palsy had paralyzed most of her body, only
leaving her one hand in a working state and she had constant arthritis pain. Because
Elizabeth Bouvias life quality was so diminished by her disease she should have
been allowed to request to be euthanized, all Patients who cannot live a normal life
should also be allowed to do this. To allow this ability to be euthanized to be given
to people with a diminished quality of life a group of experts will have to get
together and decide what a normal life would entail. This group of experts must
look at the difference between a person who does not have the ability to feed
themselves because of paralysis and a person who has the loss of only one leg and
determine if the person with one less leg has the right to be euthanized because they
cannot live a truly normal human life.
This idea that people who cannot live a normal human life because of severe
impairments raises the question of weather a person who is terminally depressed
should also get the option to be euthanized. This is a much more difficult question to
answer. This is because there is no true way to know weather a person can be
helped out of their depression or not. Allowing people who are considered
terminally depressed or who have other difficult to diagnose mental issues have the
option of euthanization could lead to a downward spiral where being euthanized is
a readily offered option to everyone, regardless of their illness.
If all of these precautions would protect the patient from themselves, but
what about the doctors who must preform the act of euthanasia? Because some
Doctors and Philosophers Debate: Should Active Euthanasia be legal?

5
doctors are either morally or religiously opposed to intentionally killing another
human there should be precautions taken so these doctors are not forced to do
something they are morally opposed to. If active, voluntary euthanasia is legalized
physicians should be able to opt out of doing the procedure and requesting that
another doctor perform the procedure. In Philosopher Assisted Suicide And
Euthanasia by Carl Elliott, the suggestion that philosophers should be the ones to do
the procedure because they are more likely for active, voluntary euthanasia. This
solution is outrageous because doctors should be the only people allowed to wield
this weapon of euthanasia. If people other than physicians were allowed to
administer the euthanization then the boundaries would be pushed too far by
euthanasia advocates. This would turn from philosophers should be able to
administer the euthanization to euthanasia pills should be offered in local drug
stores this slippery slope would drag our society into blatant murder of people.
We should put very strict limitations on euthanasia to prevent this slippery
slope of easily obtainable euthanization. To be able to have the option to request
active, voluntary euthanasia one must be either terminally ill or have a severely
diminished quality of life because of an illness or medical disease, must be a fully
autonomous person who has been okayed by a psychiatrist that they are indeed
speaking with a level head, unclouded by pain, and must be a legal adult in the
country of origin. These steps will prevent the abuse of the power that physicians
would have if euthanasia were legalized.
I think the topic of active, voluntary euthanasia is very important because
you never quite know weather you or a loved one will be diagnosed with a terminal
Doctors and Philosophers Debate: Should Active Euthanasia be legal?

6
disease. Watching a loved one wither away with no option of relief but eventual
death is heartbreaking for all people. If you were to get diagnosed with a disease
that caused extreme pain and suffering until a painful death would you want to
know you have the option of relief from suffering?



Works Cited

Appel, Jacob M. "A Suicide Right for the Mentally Ill? A Swiss Case Opens a New
Debate." Hastings Center Report 37.3 (2007): 21-23. Print.

"Death - Whose Decision? Euthanasia and the Terminally Ill." -- Fraser and Walters
26 (2): 121. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 May 2014.

Deigh, John. "Physician-Assisted Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia: Some Relevant
Differences." The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) 88.3 (1998):
1155-165. JSTOR. Web. 18 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/3491365?ref=search-
gateway:caa3bbf05d18a5f647b4d848e4e61ca4>.

Elliott, Carl. "Philosopher Assisted Suicide And Euthanasia." BMJ: British Medical
Journal 313.7064 (1996): 1088-089. JSTOR. Web. 18 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/29733324?ref=search-
gateway:5670b0546e2e723359ad9db9ed5577bb>.

"End of Life - Euthanasia - Arguments for and against Euthanasia." End of Life -
Euthanasia - Arguments for and against Euthanasia. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 May 2014.

Munson, Ronald. Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics. Page 561
Article: Elizabeth Bouvias Demand to Starve: a Request for Assisted Suicide.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub., 1979. Print.

"The Disabled and Euthanasia." Cognitive Impairment and Euthanasia. N.p., n.d. Web.
06 May 2014.