Euthanasia: Is It Moral?

Emily Simone

Professor Francisco

Philosophy 130: Moral Contemporary Issues

5, November 2017

Euthanasia: Is it Moral?

        Euthanasia is a widely debated topic all over the world, its morality always in question. Euthanasia is, as defined by dictionary.com, “the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially painful, disease or condition.” The three types of euthanasia — voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary — each have similar arguments, varying by consent standard, and can be passive or active, but all come back to the same moral question of, “should you assist or allow someone ending their life?” There is no exact answer to this question, as everyone has a different opinion based off of their personal preconceived notions, such as religion and morals.

Every society known to us subscribes to some principle or principles prohibiting the taking of life. But there are great variations between cultural traditions as to when the taking of life is considered wrong. If we turn to the roots of our Western tradition, we find that in Greek and Roman times such practices as infanticide, suicide and euthanasia were widely accepted. Most historians of Western morals agree that Judaism and the rise of Christianity contributed greatly to the general feeling that human life has sanctity and must not deliberately be taken.  To take an innocent human life is, in these traditions, to usurp the right of God to give and take life (Euthanasia 1).

        Described by Helga Kuhse, voluntary euthanasia is, “euthanasia carried out by ‘A’ at the request of ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’” (Euthanasia 2). There is a recognized connection between voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide, for example, in cases where one person will assist another to end his/her life — for instance, when ‘A’ obtains the drugs that will allow ‘B’ to [commit] suicide. Assisted suicide is a very serious federal offense and usually results in years of incarceration. This proves to provide the backbone of the entire moral, philosophical argument: the opposed perceive murder. In most cases, voluntary euthanasia is active (i.e. cessation caused by direct action) — take lethal injection for example, but, contrarily, is also achievable passively.

        Involuntary euthanasia is performed on a person who would have been able to give or withhold consent to her own death, but has not given consent — either because he/she was not asked, or because he/she was asked but withheld consent, desiring to go on living. The practice of involuntary euthanasia is the most widely controversial and most commonly frowned upon, as the person does not consent and their life or death is determined by another person, despite the fact that the victim is competent and eligible to make such decisions for themselves. Involuntary euthanasia can be active, in cases, “where ‘A’ shoots ‘B’ without ‘B’s’ consent to save [him or] her from falling into the hands of a sadistic torturer” (Euthanasia 2). Additionally, it may also be performed passively, like in situations where one makes the coherent decision for the victim, without their direct consent (although they are able to provide such), to turn off respirators and end all life-sustaining treatments keeping a terminally ill patient alive, with the peaceful intent to “let nature take its course.” Some view medical practices, for example, a doctor increasing a patient’s already large dosage of drugs, which will inevitably result in fatality.

        Lastly, non-voluntary euthanasia, is categorized as the ending of one’s life, who is unable to choose between life and death for themselves, due to a present inability to verbally or physically express their desires or a permanent state of mental incompetence. Such cases arise when illness or accident have rendered a formerly competent person permanently incompetent, without that person having previously indicated whether [they] would or would not consent to euthanasia under such extreme circumstances. Similarly to the other two forms, non-voluntary euthanasia can be both passive and active. Congruent to involuntary euthanasia, no consent is given; yet, contrarily, non-voluntary requires an inability to give (or deny) such consent. Non-voluntary euthanasia, in most cases recorded, involves a patient’s illness precipitating the following conditions: being in a coma, or being too young, too senile, too severely mentally retarded, or too mentally disturbed in such a way that the patient should be protected from themselves (What Is Non-Voluntary Euthanasia?).