The Morality Of Euthenasia Essay, Research Paper
“The third night that I roomed with Jack in our tiny double room, in the solid-tumor ward of the cancer clinic of the National Institute of Health in Maryland, a terrible thought occurred to me. Jack had a melanoma in his belly, a malignant solid tumor that the doctors guessed was the size of a softball. The doctors planned to remove the tumor, but they knew Jack would soon die. The cancer had now spread out of control. Jack, about 28, was in constant pain, and his doctor had prescribed an intravenous shot, a pain killer, and this would control the pain for perhaps two hours or a bit more. Then he would begin to moan, or whimper, very low, as though he didn’t want to wake me. Then he would begin to howl, like a dog. When this happened, he would ring for a nurse, and ask for the pain-killer. The third night of his routine, a terrible thought occurred to me. ‘If Jack were a dog, I thought, what would be done to him?’ The answer was obvious: the pound, and the chloroform. No human being with a spark of pity could let a living thing suffer so, to no good end.” (James Rachel’s The Morality of Euthanasia)
The experience of Stewart Alsop, a respected journalist, who
died in 1975 of a rare form of cancer gave an example on the morality
of euthanasia. Before he died, he wrote movingly of his experiences
with another terminal patient. Although he had not thought much about
euthanasia before, he came to approve of it after sharing a room with
Jack. While growing up, each of us learns a large number of rules of
conduct. Which rules we learn will depend on the kind of society we
live in and the parents and the friends we have. We may learn to be
honest, to be loyal, and to work hard. Sometimes we learn a rule
without understanding its point. In most cases this may work out, for
the rule may be designed to cover ordinary circumstances, but when
faced with unusual situations, we may be in trouble. This situation
is the same with moral rules. Without understanding the rules, we may
come to think of it as a mark of virtue that we will not consider
making exceptions to. We need a way of understanding the morality
against killing. The point is not to preserve every living thing
possible, but to protect the interests of individuals to have the
right of choice to die.
People who oppose euthanasia have argued constantly doctors
have often been known to miscalculate or to make mistakes. Death is
final and irreversible; in some cases doctors have wrongly made
diagnostic errors during a check-up. Patients being told they have
cancer or AIDS, by their doctors’ mistake, have killed themselves to
avoid the pain. Gay-Williams, The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia, stated:
“Contemporary medicine has high standards of excellence and a proven
record of accomplishment, but it does not possess perfect and
complete knowledge. A mistaken diagnosis is possible. We may believe
that we are dying of a disease when, as a matter of fact, we may not
be. . . .” (454)
Williams explains that patients who have been told by their doctors
they have cancer never actually had it. But there have been so few
cases reported that these remarks are often considered to be
speculations. The individual should have been able to continue living
until he felt the need to be confined to a bed. I cannot disagree
with the fact that doctors do make mistakes, but they are more correct
than they are wrong. Let’s say that the patient chooses not to die
but instead takes the medicines his doctor has prescribed for him. In
doing so the patient is choosing for himself. He’s making his own
decisions; he could see other doctors to see if his illness had not
been mistakenly presented. Is it not for the individual to decide
whether she or he wants to live or die?
Those opposing euthanasia have also argued that practicing euthanasia
prevents the development of new cur
methods in saving a life. Gay-Williams says:
“Also, there is always the possibility that an experimental procedure
or a hitherto untried technique will pull us through. We should at
least keep this option open, but euthanasia closes it off.” “They
might decide that the patient would simply be ‘better off dead’ and
take the steps necessary to make that come about. This attitude would
then carry over to their dealings with patients less seriously ill.
The result would be an overall decline in quality of medical care.”
(455)
Euthanasia does not have to prevent medical researchers from inventing new cures or trying new methods in saving a life. Having new cures
that are successful will reduce the number of patients wanting to die.
Recent news says medical researchers have now reported on new methods
of treating and curing cancer patients. News such as this would let
those who think they “are better off dead” have confidence and hope
for a life to live.
The common argument in support of euthanasia is one that is
called “The argument of mercy.” Patients sometimes suffer pain that
can hardly be comprehended by those who have not experienced it. The
suffering would be so terrible that people wouldn’t want to read or
think about; and recoil in horror from its description. The argument
for mercy simply states: Euthanasia is morally justified because it
ends suffering. Terminally ill patients are people who will never
attain a personal existence, never experience life as a net value,
and/or never achieve a minimal level of independence. The moral issue
regarding euthanasia is not affected by whether more could have been
done for a patient; but whether euthanasia is allowable if it is the
only alternative to torment. Euthanasia does not refer to Nazi-like
elimination of the sick, old, or unproductive; traditionally
euthanasia means the search for a good death, an easier death for one
who is dying, a death released in some measure from intractable
suffering. If a person prefers and even begs for death as an
alternative to linger on in torment, only to die, then surely it is
not immoral to help this person die sooner.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is one of
the oldest and most common moral proverbs, which applies to everyone
alike. When people try to decide whether certain actions are morally
correct, they must ask whether they would be willing for everyone to
follow that rule, in similar circumstances. The application of this
to the question of euthanasia is fairly obvious. Each of us is going
to die someday, although people don’t know how or when, and we will
probably have little choice in the matter. But suppose you were given
two choices: to die quietly and painlessly or hope to live and
suffer? A chance to survive a disease so painful that you could only
moan for those few days before death; with family members standing
helplessly by. What would your ideal choice be? I know I would
choose the quick and painless death. Why is euthanasia considered
morally wrong by some people? The principle of self-determination
promotes the ideas of self-governance, freedom of choice, and personal
responsibility for individual decisions and behaviors.
What if Jack were your brother, your husband, or your son;
would you let him suffer or die painlessly? The doctors planed to
remove the tumor, but they knew eventually “nature will take its
course.” Society does not have the right to tell an individual how to
control his own life. If an individual chooses to die, then by all
mean he has that right; the right is paramount. Euthanasia is morally
correct, although this method of relieving pain has been the topic of
great moral debates.