1

Ethics of Euthanasia: Part Two

Name

Department, Institution

Course Code: Course Code

Instructor

Submission Date
 2

Ethics of Euthanasia: Part Two

Euthanasia is the termination of the life of an individual who is terminally sick to reduce

their suffering. The permissibility (or lack thereof) of this practice is a highly emotional issue at

a personal level and a communal level. While a sizable group think that it should be an option for

some categories of people and others are absolute on condemning it, a minority of people believe

it should be available on demand. I concur with the former group that mercy killings are

permissible under the right circumstances when specific bare minimum requirements are met.

Regardless, determining whether to proceed with euthanasia is always an excruciating ethical

puzzle whose final decision will step on people’s toes whichever way the pendulum swings. This

easy covers personal, communal, and the Kantian categorical imperative perspectives of

euthanasia. The last section is an annotated bibliography on the ethics of euthanasia.

Personal and Communal Opinion

Each individual must have some fundamental rights, including autonomy, to decide what

is suitable for their lives. I think that the opinion to have a blanket refusal of physician-assisted

suicide (PAS) requests is an oversimplification of the human experience. Each human being

experience life uniquely with an opulent the array of resultant perceptions about the meaning of

our existence. It is a gross overestimation of our human capabilities to claim to know the entirety

of the human thought and emotional process. We should not impose our will on others despite

having strong opinions about a particular matter as long as their actions do not bring harm to

others. People should thus have the right to elect whether to end their life. However, there is a

need to institute particular guardrails to prevent misuse and exploitation of this authority.
 3

The protective measures ensure that every case of euthanasia undergoes a thorough

evaluation to eliminate unreasonable ones. The primary allowable reason for euthanasia typically

is unbearable pain in terminally ill patients. Additionally, they may include a decline in quality

of life due to physical conditions like paralysis or difficulty swallowing, and psychological

factors such as feeling a burden or fear for losing control. These secondary reasons must be

subject to vigorous oversight. Further, the care team should only decide on the presence or

absence of viable treatment options and not whether they should grant PAS requests. That

verdict should be left to hospital ethical committees. The separation of roles ensures individual

clinicians are not left alone with the burden of conducting euthanasia, and it also mitigates the

risk of misuse as well as avoid contravening local laws.

Finally, I’ll sum up this section by addressing the prime reason why some community

members may feel differently from my opinion. The central argument against mercy killings

rests on the sanctity of life. Most mainstream religions hold that human life is all-important and

under no circumstance should be artificially and deliberately be brought to a halt. I agree that life

should not be ended arbitrarily. Human life is irreplaceable, and its value only bounded by our

capacity to imagine. However, just as religious ethicists are right to believe that life is owed to a

deity, any other group of people while respecting others, can surmise on life’s worth. In short, no

authority is the sole determinant of life’s meaning. It is not ethical to impose our beliefs on other

members of the community. Consequently, using the life-is-sacred argument to deny euthanasia

to everyone is morally questionable.

Kantian Categorical Imperative View

Kant reckons that committing suicide when our bodies ail is immoral. While Kant does

not explicitly discuss assisted suicide, he does distinctly disagree with self-inflicted killings.
 4

However, the problematic moral issue is the self-destruction and whoever implements it is of

little significance. A person who takes their life is infringing on the moral law, and therefore,

Kant concludes that suicide (and assisted suicide by extension) is not permissible. Additionally,

Kant argues that taking a life disrespects personhood, going against a core tenant of his

categorical imperative reasoning. Therefore, Kantians should not support euthanasia.

Ethics of Euthanasia: Annotated Bibliography

Math, S. B., & Chaturvedi, S. K. (2012). Euthanasia: The right to life vs right to die. The Indian

journal of medical research, 136(6), 899–902.

This piece engages in discussion about the reason for and against euthanasia. It deals with

concepts such as active versus passive euthanasia ("introducing something to cause

death" versus "withholding treatment" (p. 889), voluntary and involuntary suicide, and

physician assisted killings. It lists arguments for euthanasia including the right to death

with dignity, patients refusing care, part of caregiver's burden, and providing terminally

ill patients with a chance to donate organs. On the other hand, it suggests the

counterarguments against euthanasia are questionable mental independence of the

terminally ill, malicious intention, emphasis on care, "commercialization of health care"

(p. 901), and sanctity of life. The discussion around is rich, and trying to understand both

sides of the argument is essential. So, this article is helpful in my paper to cover the

basics of euthanasia.

Brassington, I. (2006). Killing people: What Kant could have said about suicide and euthanasia

but did not. Journal of medical ethics, 32(10), 571–574.

https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2005.015420
 5

This paper examines the Kantian take of physician assisted suicide. Brassington (2006)

asserts that Kant's arguments for rejecting assisted suicide are weak by his standards. For

instance, the writer states that the views are “uncompelling and … undermined” (p. 573)

by other parts of Kant’s thought. Moreover, Barssington (2006) proceeds to say suicide

does not go against the moral law concerning Kantian categorical imperative. He does not

see any incredibly conniving reason why a Kantian must subscribe to the doctrine that

assisted suicide contravenes the more law. He maintains that a Kantian ethicist is "free to

choose whether to accept or reject" (p. 574) euthanasia. I think Brassington makes an

interesting case concerning Kant's assessment of suicide and by extension, physician-

assisted suicide.

Murphy, S. (2017). Legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia: Foundational issues and

implications. Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law, 31(2), 332-394.

https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/jpl/vol31/iss2/3

In this peer-reviewed article, Murphy (2017) looks at foundation matters through a

general lens, primarily centring on legal criteria for assisted suicide and euthanasia. It

draws from commentary from multiple dissenting physicians who offer their experiences

when working area where clinician-assisted suicide is legal. The writer states that many

clinicians object to physician-assisted suicide based on "religion and conscience" (p.

335). It also examines the ethical basis of several trial court legal decisions to “elicit

some of the moral reasoning that drive law” (p. 367). It also delves into the difference

between authorization, obligation and justification to kill. I agree with Murphy that

clinicians have the right to choose whether to or not participate in euthanasia even if

legalized in the State.

 6

Kinsinger F. S. (2009). Beneficence and the professional’s moral imperative. Journal of

Chiropractic Humanities, 16(1), 44–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echu.2010.02.006

This piece explores the role of the concept of beneficence in healthcare concerning its

implication in euthanasia. The researchers define beneficence as "actions of kindness,

mercy and charity with strong link to the ethical obligation" (p. 45) to do well to others.

The writer says the performing euthanasia to relieve patients suffering and pain and

prevents unnecessarily misery. “Society’s integral values of mercy and compassion” (p.

45) require caregivers not to let people live in agonizing pain. I agree with Kinsinger

(2009) that in specific limited cases, the best way to show kindness and compassion

towards fellow humankind is to conduct mercy killings.

Ruijs C. D., Kerkhof A. J., & Vander, W. G. (2011). Depression and explicit requests for

euthanasia in end-of-life cancer patients in primary care in the Netherlands: a

longitudinal, prospective study. Family Practice, 28(4), 393–399.

https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmr006

Ruijis et al. (2011) assess how common depression related issues in terminally ill cancer

care lead to patients requesting physician-assisted suicide. It also addresses the role of

depression in deciding to ask for euthanasia among cancer patients. The writers surmise

that Major depression is not a prominent cause of cancer patients to ask for euthanasia.

They state that it is not a “major factor in explicit requests for euthanasia” (p. 398) in

terminal care for cancer patients. They also noted that approximately half of “terminally

ill cancer patients with depression did not request” (p. 397) for assisted suicide. Ruijis et

al. help me synthesize nuanced reason for requesting euthanasia, especially the non-

conventional ones involving psychological reasons.