Ethical Dilemma on Euthanasia

...

AUTONOMY AND PERSONAL FREEDOM

When we talk about autonomy, the idea of autonomy is for the powerful and privileged; and elderly and minorities’ right to say is neglected. What if there is a conflict between the autonomy of the patient and the autonomy of the healthcare? The appeal to autonomy is just as illusion. The right to autonomy based on abortion is well known. Such arguments came from people of power and privilege. Those who do not have the power and privilege rarely speak of autonomy, precisely because they don’t have it. Those concerned about marginalised population are speaking more of reproductive justice which is an appeal to the specific understanding of the good.

In a western pluralistic society, the idea of good differs and cannot be fixed to one idea of autonomy and good. But in this society, values are determined by market and those who are capable of producing capital are taken as invaluable, and those who are not able to produce capital are thought to be worthless. In a pluralistic society, it is the individual who make the calls, not doctor, state or the society. In a pluralistic society, there are various rooms for interpreting any ideas. Then, who are we to say that one must be terminally ill and who are we to say what terminally ill means? And who are we to limit the policy to unbearable sufferings? Who are to say what unbearable suffering means? Indeed, in the strong claim of autonomy of western democracy, it is difficult to know on what basis we would protect assisted suicide at all even if one was simply tired of life. If euthanasia is legalised this law will change the earlier culture and it can lead to coercion indirectly for patients to die under this new culture. But in appeal of autonomy, autonomy is something that is not to be coerced by cultures directly or indirectly.

SLIPPERY SLOPE

Ultimately the idea of voluntary euthanasia lead to a slippery slope from explicit consent of hopeless and unbearable suffering to new born infants, child euthanasia, where consent is not taken. From terminally ill patient it can lead to those who are not terminally ill such as the old sick handicapped being burden of their lives to end their life. Their judgement of all sick and handicapped to end their lives are structurally coerced and try to change our culture that are determined by market. Justice required to change the social structure and attitudes of the society.

According to the Boer, Dutch official responsible for viewing euthanasia cases wrote an open letter to United Kingdom who are arguing about the issue of his experience quote “I used to be a supporter of Dutch law but now with 12 years of experience I take a different view. At the very least, wait for an honest and intellectually satisfying analysis of the reason behind the increase in the number of deaths. is it because the law should have better safe guards or is it because of the mere existence of such a law is an invitation to allowed euthanasia and physician assisted suicide as a normality instead of the last resort. Before this questions are answered, don’t go there. Once genie is out of the bottle, it is not likely to ever go back again”.

Part II.

VOLUNTRY EUTHANASIA AND ITS LEGALIZATION

Where should voluntary euthanasia be legal? But, before asking that we should asked why do we considered killing an innocent person wrong but also a crime? The first reason is that it is the violation of the autonomy of the person killed. It denies that person everything they wanted to do for the rest of their life. Now you kill him, they cannot do it whatever their hopes, wishes and plan. You prevent them doing that they wanted to do and go against their will. But, in the clearly in the case of euthanasia the values that we properly place on autonomy does not go against assisting a patient to die. It goes in favour of the patient because it is the autonomous wish of the patient that you are fulfilling. Autonomy is rightly a value but it does not over ride other values. For examples, love sick individual is in despair because the one he love rejected him and therefore wants to die. I don’t think we should regard as a wish that we ought to fulfil or assist. Even if that it is at this moment this person’s autonomous wish, you can surely predict this mood will pass, that the young person in future will come to think of his life worth living and you could reasonably conclude that the value of that life and everything that he will obtain throughout his life over rides the temporary violation of autonomy.

The second reason for considering killing an innocent person wrong is because killing deprives the person of whatever things that person would have experienced for the rest of their life, and it would typically bring a positive balance on more good things than bad things. But in the case of voluntary euthanasia that reason no longer goes against killing but in favour because the person have judged that rest of their lives cannot have a positive balance. They are the best judge solely assuming a competent well informed patient and with the informed views of doctors whether they would be better or not. They are in the best position to say “no”, that the rest of their life is not going bring enough good things to make it worth going through the various kinds of sufferings or the various forms of loss of dignity, loss of autonomy that they regard as bad things in life. In his circumstances the usual ground for holding killing to be wrong because it deprives the person of their experience turns into an opposite reason for listening to that person’s request, because it will save the patient from bad experience. The law against killing should not be absolute. It give us no grants for making it a crime when a competent person request for assistance for ending his life and has good reasons based on the terminal or irremediable illness that has illuminated the patient’s prospect of having an acceptable quality of life.

The third reason considering killing an innocent person wrong is because people are part of friendship, relationships, families. When someone is killed, there often is a tragedy to the people who and care for that person. The family and the friends who request voluntary euthanasia still love that person and will still grieve when the patient dies. But if they love that person they will also respect that that is what the person they love wants and they will not want that person to suffer against his/her will. And they will want that patient’s autonomy to be respected. In so far as that they will grieve that the person is no longer with them, at least in the cases where we are talking