Active Euthenasia

– A Kantian Perspective Essay, Research Paper

Euthanasia is one of society’s more widely,

and hotly debated moral issues of our time. More directly, active euthanasia,

which by definition, is; “Doing something, such as administering a lethal

drug, or using other means that cause a person’s death.”1 Passive euthanasia,

defined as; “Stopping (or not starting) some treatment, which allows a

person to die, the person’s condition causes his or her death,”2 seems

not to be as debated, perhaps not as recognized, as it’s counterpart. I

have chosen to look more closely at the issue of active euthanasia, and

whether or not it would be considered ethical, by Kantian standards.

Those who support the practice of active

euthanasia might argue that helping the terminally ill to bring about their

own deaths, allowing them to determine the how and when, is not only humane,

but also allows the person, who is simply “living to die,” to maintain

dignity by orchestrating their own end, thus letting them die at peace,

rather than suffer to the end, preceiving themselves to be a burden and/or

disgrace, to those they love. According to recent polls, many Canadians

would agree,3 but the question is, have they taken a close look at the

ethical debate? Those who are against active euthanasia would say not,

and would argue that by participating in the practice of active euthanasia,

one is “playing God,” or perhaps, even worse, that they are not acting

out of mercy, but rather out of selfishness, attempting to lessen their

own burden, and that therefore, the act is nothing less than cold-blooded

murder. Murder is defined as; “The unlawful, premeditated killing of one

human being by another.”4 Euthanasia, in Canada, remains unlawful as of

today, and the act of euthanasia is premeditated, thus whether for the

purpose of mercy or not, euthanasia is, by definition, murder. According

to Kantian perspective and the Holy Bible, murder is both a sin and a crime,

therefore we ought not participate in the practice of euthanasia, because

it is murder, and it is the wrong thing to do.

The euthanasia debate raises many questions.

Questions such as; For whose benefit is the murder actually taking place?

Ought we allow family members to make a life-or-death decision on behalf

of a loved one who may never have expressed a desire to die, simply because

they could not vocalize a will to live? (As was the case of Robert Latimer).

If a person should be suffering with an illness of which there seems no

hope of recovery, yet they are unable to make a choice for themselves how

do we know what that person would voluntarily choose? Is it our right to

decide whether or not they have a desire to live? If we ourselves are not

in the position of the individual whose life and/or death is being decided,

we cannot possibly know or understand what their will is, what they would

opt for personally, or even whether or not they can comprehend what is

happening, thus the decisions we are making find us “playing God,” and

assuming that our decisions are always in the best intrests of another.

Without knowing for sure what the individual would have chosen, we may

well have gone against their will, and thus have committed murder.

Some would argue that the practice of euthanasia

is used as a last resort, when the individual can no longer manage the

pain of their illness. However, that arguement can be rebutted by an observation

made by a proponent of a movement similar to Right to Die. Dr Pieter Admiraal,

a leader of a movement to legalize assisted suicide in the Netherlands,

stated pubicly that pain is never justification for euthanasia considering

the advanced medical techniques currently available to manage pain in almost

every circumstance.5 Thus the pain does not justify death, but rather it

justifies the need for more money to educate health care professionals