People have an explicit right to die. However, modern science and medicine try to reject this fact or at least to put off the day of human death. Still, there are cases when people have to choose whether to live or to die, and it is twice difficult when one is unable to make such a decision and relatives have to decide instead of him/her. Euthanasia is the topic for discussion. Being one of the most contestable issues, the quarrel around this problem does not stop.
Both sides of the problem have personal vision of the situation, and none of them wants to agree with the opposite argumentation. Euthanasia is an ethical issue as modern equipment allows medical establishments to support life almost forever. This is incorrect due to the law of God, therefore, switching off all the equipment, people follow God’s decision and give a person an opportunity to die in piece.
Euthanasia as a Murder
There are a lot of reasons why euthanasia should be prohibited. First of all, modern science is aimed at creating various means for prolonging human life.
When relatives refer to euthanasia they kill a person as there are variants for him/her to stay alive. The possibilities of a human organism are not studied up to the end. There are a lot of cases when a person was agreed by doctors to be more dead than alive, but after it one continues living for many years. Medicine is aimed at giving people a chance to live, and euthanasia is the measure which kills them.
Human life is sacred. Ceasing human life means murder. Doctors are mistaken sometimes and the prognosis may be not that bad as doctors say. Many patients themselves sign up the permission for euthanasia as they are afraid of pain and obscurity. Still, I am inclined to think that all these reasons do not work when a person is almost dead and in case all the equipment is switched off he/she is unable to live.
Euthanasia as the Way to Make People Free from Pain
Euthanasia is not a murder, it is the way to release a person from pain. People have a sacred right to die and if God is sure that death should take place, neither modern medical achievements nor scientific equipment may help. When life is impossible without modern medical equipment, when a person is unable to breathe, eat, drink, have blood pressure, etc. without medical assistance this is not a life, it is a survival.
In this case a patient is unable to make decisions, however, it is obvious that everyone would better die than live without any sign of life. Choosing euthanasia as the way out, relatives usually think about a patient and his/her interests. What is better for a patient, a lengthy existence without reasonable signs of life or death which may be not the end? I suppose death is better in this case as when there are no chances for a person to lead normal life, it is better not to lead it at all.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it should be stated that there are several arguments in favor of euthanasia which cannot be covered by those who are against it. The main argument is that people are created by God and they cannot decide whether a person should live or not. Trying to support human life with the help of modern equipment is a good idea, however, not in case there are no chances for a person to live without that equipment. In this case euthanasia is a release.
Death with dignity is a phenomenon widely discussed in literature due to its controversial nature. According to Szabo (2016), the supporters of physician-aid-in-dying have succeeded in legalizing it in five states. On the one hand, assisted death may be considered a form of suicide, which is illegal and immoral. Moreover, the law questions the sanctity of life may give too much power to doctors and can lead to decreased quality of care to terminally ill patients (BBC, n.d.).
On the other hand, the supporters of the law claim that assisted death is not a suicide, and it allows more end-of-life options for terminally ill patients (Szabo, 2016). They believe that people have the right to choose which way they want to end their life. At present, terminally ill patients end their lives at home with their families or at hospices (McManus, 2012). However, these options require support from relatives or significant financial investments, which may not be available to dying people (McManus, 2012). Therefore, people need to be offered other options about how to spend their last days.
Even though I understand the arguments of supporters of death with dignity, I strongly oppose it. The case of Brittany Maynard, who ended her life at 29 using death with dignity laws, is a vivid example of how physician-aid-in-dying can be applied (Szabo, 2016). According to Szabo (2016), Brittany feared severe pain associated with cancer. However, Blanke, LeBlanc, Hershman, Ellis, and Meyskens (2017) state that only 25% of people who used euthanasia laws are concerned with pain.
The majority of people are concerned with control over their life and death (Blanke et al., 2017). However, I believe that the premature end of life is not in the best interest of the patient, and doctors should not have the right to take people’s lives. I believe that people should find peace with fate and God’s will.
Blanke, C., LeBlanc, M., Hershman, D., Ellis, L., & Meyskens, F. (2017). Characterizing 18 years of the Death with Dignity Act in Oregon. JAMA oncology, 3(10), 1403-1406.
McManus, R. (2012). Editorial: Culture, death and dying with dignity. Health Sociology Review, 21(4), 370–372. Web.
Life is doubtlessly a wonderful gift, which is worth appreciating. The fact that in the present-day society, human life is put at the top of the entire list of values is a major achievement of the civilization and the fact that the current society is based on the principles. However, in some cases, the choice between living in misery and parting with the earthly suffering may appear. In other words, one may have the need to consider euthanasia as the merciful method of avoiding pain and misery.
It would be wrong to assume that euthanasia is the invention of the XXI century. The very idea of terminating one’s existence with the help of a medical procedure emerged in England in the XVII century and was mentioned by Francis Bacon (Dowbiggin 23). At present, though, the procedure can only be carried out in Belgium, Canada, India, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and in several states of the U.S. (Montana, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington) (International Perspectives Legal Status of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide para. 1).
Thesis Statement
Since most of the arguments against euthanasia revolve around the issues related to religion, as well as the fact that euthanasia can be used as a weapon for criminal profiteers to gain more money, while the arguments promoting euthanasia are based on the human rights concept and, instead of promoting suicide, in fact, list pro-life arguments, euthanasia should be made legal in the United States and Europe.
In addition, when talking about euthanasia, one must keep in mind that there are different types of the given procedure, each having a unique status and offering a range of specific ethical problems. For instance, there is the so-called active euthanasia, which presupposes that the patient voices their desire to terminate their existence, and a passive one, which means that the patient’s life cases with the decision of the nursing specialist (Frieser para. 6).
Finally, it is important to remember that, despite the recent changes in favor of euthanasia, the laws in most states define euthanasia as “assisted suicide” (Frieser para. 4)
Arguments In Favor Of Euthanasia: The Right To Live And To Die
Addressing the issue of euthanasia, most of its proponents mention the fact that the given procedure aligns with the basic human rights, i.e., the right to live and the right to die. Therefore, depriving people of the opportunity to have euthanasia means infringing their rights. The fact that the people undergoing the procedure may be considered perfect organ donor and, therefore, save another person is another proof of euthanasia legalization being a reasonable step to take.
Finally, in a range of cases, people willing to have euthanasia face truly horrendous alternatives, such as the death of cancer, inability to move, etc. Therefore, it will be much more humane to suggest them the method of dealing with their diseases, which will allow for a more dignified death.
Arguments Against Euthanasia: Appreciating The Gift Of Life
Needless to say, most arguments against euthanasia are based on religious beliefs (Rockman 13). Indeed, according to most world religions, suicide, which euthanasia is classified as, is a sin and, therefore, must not be committed (“Not a Mercy but a Sin” para. 1).
Therefore, the arguments against euthanasia are rather repetitive. One of the most sensible arguments against euthanasia is that it is an irreversible process. Thus, after realizing that their decision was wrong, a person cannot reverse the process once the procedure commences.
Discussing The Sources: Where The Key Information Is Going To Come From
Due to the complexity of the subject, it will be required to consider a range of various sources, including legal papers, in the states that allow euthanasia and those that do not, recent articles and major works on the issue, case studies, both in the field of healthcare and law, etc. In addition, such sources as the consideration of euthanasia by the United Nations Organization will also be a must for the study to be carried out.
The materials related to the regulation of euthanasia issues will allow considering the issue from a legal perspective and evaluate the legal problems concerning the introduction of euthanasia into the state healthcare system. Case studies will help see euthanasia outcomes and, thus, evaluate its effects. Finally, the infamous case of Terri Schiavo (Fletcher 1) must be analyzed to come to a conclusion.
Conclusion: Legalizing Euthanasia
The arguments against euthanasia do not hold any water in the state where legislation is based on a set of reasonable rules and regulations. Being a decision that concerns a person’s own health and life, the euthanasia procedure must be a matter of a personal choice. Assisted suicide is the matter that the government should not intervene with, seeing how euthanasia is a strictly personal business.
In addition, religious concerns of a community must not affect the healthcare-related policies statewide. Hence, euthanasia must be legalized across the USA, as well as in those states that are capable of facilitating an easy and fast euthanasia procedure for its terminally ill patients.
Works Cited
Dowbiggin, Ian. A Concise History of Euthanasia: Life, Death, God, and Medicine. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. 2007. Print.
Fletcher, David B. The Terri Schiavo Case. Web.
Frieser, James. “Euthanasia.” Moral Issues that Divide Us. 2008. Web.
International Perspectives Legal Status of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. 2014. Web.
The first article focuses on efforts made by activists, lawyers, and patients in championing for euthanasia rights in Canada (Martin 1). The individuals mentioned in the article are Sue Rodriguez, Véronique Hivon, Justice John Sopinka, Lee Carter, and Hollis Johnson. The article asserts that in the year 1993, Rodriquez petitioned in vain to the Supreme Court of Canada to allow her to undertake euthanasia (Martin 1). She suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. At the time of the appeal, Hivon was a law student. The two individuals have become renowned in North America for championing for recognition of assisted suicides as a human right.
The article points out that Hivon is eagerly waiting for a fast-approaching Supreme Court case aimed at resolving the position of the country’s top court of law concerning criminal code barring euthanasia in Canada (Martin 1). The hearing will be relying on Carter v. Canada Case, which had been ruled earlier. The case involved Gloria Taylor and Kathleen Carter. Taylor like Rodriguez had contracted amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Kathleen tried in vain to help Taylor get assisted suicide because she had a deteriorating spinal disorder.
In the article, the author asserts that, in the year 1993, Rodriguez had the liberty to procure suicide (Martin 1). Back then, attempting suicide had been legalized. However, she was not able to end her life because her illness prevented her from doing so without external assistance. Then, the Supreme Court established that Rodriguez’s independence rights were being violated. However, the court pointed out based on a 5-to-4 decision that the violations were defensible since legalizing assisted suicide for the immobilized would endanger susceptible persons and negate the sovereignty of the sanctity of life. The article also shows that unlike in the year 1993, Canadians’ perceptions about assisted suicide have changed. Research shows that a larger percentage of the population support assisted suicide.
The Supreme Court Ruling on Physician-Assisted Death focuses on the implications of Carter v. Canada Case (The Canadian Nurses Protective Society 1). The article asserts that it is criminal offense to undertake an assisted suicide in Canada. However, the report notes that the above ruling created an exception. The supreme court acknowledged that the injunction in section 241(b) of the Criminal Code on euthanasia is illegitimate. The court argued that the provision prevented nurses from undertaking assisted suicide for competent individuals despite them offering consent and exhibiting severe illnesses that cause intolerable pain. The judge termed the code unconstitutional. The author notes that the effect of the ruling was suspended until February 2016. The suspension was enacted to enable the federal government to deliberate on the response to the decision.
Values and principles
When the ruling is implemented in the year 2016, physicians should expect to experience dilemmas when they try to administer assisted suicide (The Canadian Nurses Protective Society 1). The dilemmas will primarily arise when attempting to determine proper care and the same time value the patients’ autonomy. Despite the fact that the alternatives to the physicians accountable for the choices are firmly illustrated by the law, the patients and their families will often query the medical options provided to the terminally ill (Simpson 1). The above illustration indicates that the physicians should be informed about how the law expects them to comply with changes to the assisted death laws. Similarly, nurses should consult with the legal team and healthcare shareholders in distinguishing the limits between the patients’ rights and the physicians’ accountability based on the possible life-limiting treatment choices.
Similarly, the physicians should expect ethical issues to arise when the ruling is fully implemented. It would be challenging to institute how ethical the practice can be or who should consent the practice. Likewise, concerns on how the practice should be carried out and regulated will arise. Based on the above illustrations, it is apparent that the practice would attract several criticisms.
Reflection and analysis
According to the proponents of assisted suicide like Rodriguez and Hivon, everyone has a right to decide when to die. Therefore, as long as the patient makes informed and apparent intention to terminate his or her life the right should be respected (Picard 1). Equally, assisted suicide should be legalized the choice to request for support in dying causes no damage to the state or other individuals. As such, assisted suicide works in the best interest of the country and the terminally ill patient’s family by offering a reprieve. Terminally ill patients like Rodriguez require specialized medical resources and services that are usually very costly for extended periods (College of Nurses Ontario 3). The above implies that managing the terminally ill for a long time robs those who may live well under similar prospects. Therefore, assisted suicide should be legalized.
When the ruling is implemented next year, the practice is expected to attract numerous heated debates among the physicians, the members of the public, legal systems, and religious groups. Because of this, all the stakeholders and the public should be sensitized on ethical implications and potential impacts of the ruling.
Works Cited
College of Nurses Ontario. Ethics CNO Standards. 2009. Web.
According to the American Humane Association, over 9.7 million animals were euthanized in 2008 in shelters across America. Many animal welfare organizations agree that this figure is a generally accepted statistic of the number of animals put away by shelter every year. (American Humane Association, 2010). Animal shelters are forced to euthanize animals for a number of reasons which includes: Lack of funds to treat sick animals, overcrowding as a result of the increased number of animals brought in by owners who can no longer take care of them, rising number of old pets and lack of funds to feed animals.
Most animals’ shelters in the country depend on private donations and funding from local government and most of the workforce is provided by volunteers. In the past two years, there have been a sharp decline in private donations and reduced funding from local government as a result of the ongoing tough economic crisis. Lack of funds means that shelters are not able to provide enough food to all animals and pay for the treatment of sick animals. As such they result in euthanasia to create room for healthy pets.
But what does it mean to keep a healthy pet at a shelter or at home? Putting a dollar value will give a clear picture of the cost associated with providing health services to pets. According American Pet Products Manufacturers Association “dog owners spent an average of $785 on vet bills in 2008, while cat owners spent $516” (OES.org, 2009). In addition to the average vet bill, pet owners who have an animal that requires special medical procedures have a bigger burden. Here is a closer look at the average national cost of medical procedures for a dog: The cost of repairing a broken limb; $350, the cost of relieving swallowed objects (Gastrotomy: – which is common to most pets); $383, cost of X-ray, $58, Anesthesia (per hour) $108 and the cost of Anesthetic monitoring $19. ( (OES.org, 2009). This cost can be a big burden to both the animal shelters and pet owners. To cater to this crisis, the American Humane Society and the American Society for the prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) are advocating for the “establishment and operation of low-cost spay/neuter clinics” (American Humane Association, 2010). Reduced cost of treatment will motivate people to keep the pet in their home instead of taking them to shelter. On the other hand, shelters will be able to access reduced cost of treatment for pets that are already in the facilities.
The number of pets taken to shelters has risen by 50 percent due to the hard economic times. A pointing case is Animal Rescue Fresno in Central Valley, California where the number of dogs taken to shelter in 2009was 3,900. The majority of the pet owner had lost their homes to foreclosure. Shelters are forced to choose between saving all animals and keeping few adoptable animals, and as a result, many pets are euthanized. According to Beth Caffrey, California SPCA director, 33,000 pets were euthanized in 2009 in the Central Valley, CA. area alone (Caffrey, 2009). To make the matter worse, owners giving up pets for adoption will have to pay an adoption fee of $10 for each pet they take for adoption in California shelters. This may lead to increased cases of pets’ abandonment. Since January 2008, at the onset of the recession, over 2 million animals have been abandoned (Balcom, 2000)
To fully understand what pet owners are going through, and the reason why they may decide to put up a pet for adoption by an animal shelter, it is important to take a closer look at an important factor in regards to pets: Cost of ownership. The bottom line is, owning any kind of pet comes with a huge responsibility and some serious bills. All pets need food, bedding, cage for large animals, toys veterinary services, grooming, and in some cases, licensing. The figures presented in this paper are national estimates from Familyresource.com, are the minimum cost. Actual cost may be higher depending on the cost of living for a particular State. Again, the costs are purely what the pet owners have to pay from their pocket, and “do not include the amount of money and time you will need to spend training, cleaning and interacting with your pet. Time is, after all, money” (Bairey, 2010).
To own a dog, the initial minimum cost is $835. This includes the cost of the puppy itself, shots, food, sundries such as food dishes and collar, toys, treat, licensing and grooming supplies. Dog owners spend a further “$220 on food, $785 on vet bills, $45 on sundries such as a collar, lead, and tag, $60 on toys, $130 on treats, $70 on medications like flea treatments or ear mite oil, and $55 on a short kennel stay, for an average of $1200 per year, or $ 24 per week” for maintenance only (Bairey, 2010). The minimum initial cost of owning a cat is $305, and an average maintenance cost of $550 per year.
In October 2009, Camp Wolfgang, a pet rescue shelter for German shepherds in Ennis Texas, had to close down due to a lack of funds. By the time the shelter was being closed, there was barely any money to feed the animals in that facility. Most of the animals were euthanized while others were taken to Dallas Animal Service, which was already overcrowded. Dallas Animal Services have been forced “to shorten its holding period for animal adoption from several months to 45 days” (England, 2009). This means that unless these pets are adopted, most will have to be put away, in the coming days.
Most shelter caters primarily for cat and dogs. As people lose their homes to foreclosure or are simply unable to keep a pet, shelters are increasingly receiving animals that they don’t have the capacity to keep (Balcom, 2000). This includes reptiles like iguanas, turtles, fish and snakes; rabbits, etc. These animals require special care than dogs or cats and not many people are willing to adopt them.
Let’s take a look at what it takes to own a green iguana which is a common practice in states like Florida and California. Green iguana makes a great pet as they are interesting and intriguing reptiles. Owning a green iguana requires specialized knowledge as the animal has a special need. An iguana can grow to be very large. Just like dogs and cats, iguanas need love through interaction and constant contact. They need to be fed, cleaned, and provided with comfortable large cages and beddings. Taming iguana requires a lot of patience as it takes a long time. An iguana can live for more than 20 years; hence they require an owner who is committed for long time relationship. Green Iguana requires a consistent, stable life; hence people who travel constantly may not be the ideal owner. Iguana owners need to be financially secure because raising them requires a lot of money (Knight, 2010). This is because they require fresh food and requires special medical attention from a qualified vet who might be located far.
The bond created between green iguanas and their owner is very strong over time. Selling iguana or taking it for adoption to the animal shelter can be the most devastating experience for the animal, leading to negative consequences. Unlike cats or dogs, iguanas are easily heartbroken, and will most likely get sick when they are separated from their owners. Once they are taken to the animal shelter for adoption, they are even more stressed and become sick (Knight, 2010). The cost of taking care of them compared to other habitable animals like dog is high. Faced with this kind of circumstance, animal shelters don’t have any other choice other than to euthanize them.
In 2007, a company based in San Diego, called FlexPetx started renting dogs to pet lovers who did not have the necessary resources to own a pet on a full-time basis. So far, the company has opened the business in New York, Los Angeles, and another big city, allowing “want-to-be pet owners across the country to experience the joys of owning a pet, without the long term, day-to-day hassles” (McGrath, 2007). The company, owned by Ms. Cervantes, adopts animals from local shelters, provides them with necessary vet care, puts them on intensive training before they are put up for rent. FlexPetz members pay a monthly fee of $50, a “daily doggy time charge” of up to $40, and a yearly membership fee of $250” (Karni, 2007)
Although the concept of renting pets has received a lot of criticism from the canine community, it is one way of solving the current crisis of putting away animals in a pet shelter. The company adopts animals from the shelter, thereby reducing congestion, and cost of care and hence saving animals from being euthanized. Another benefit is that most people end up adopting pets once they “fall in love with their rental pets and decide to adopt them as permanent houseguests” (Karni, 2007). According to Ms.Cervantes, renting a pet act as hands-on training on how to take care of a pet and as people interact with the animals, they understand the ownership responsibility.
Already, many shelters across the country are catching up with the pet renting trend as a way to reduce the number of animals being put away and get the necessary finance for running shelters. In St. Louis, Mo, an animal shelter known as Stray Rescues has a “rent-a-pet program where you can take a dog home for a weekend and see if you are ready to commit to caring and providing for a dog” (Pet Welcome Inc., 2010) Those wishing to rent a pet apply online, and once their credentials are verified, they can foster a dog. According to Randy Grim, “Adoptions have boosted for this organization since the program started in 2007”. In Aspen, Colorado, the Aspen Animal Shelter has a similar program which has resulted in increased adoption and a reduced number of animals put away.
Here are some of the statistics from the American Humane Society which gives a picture of what happens at an animal shelter. 56% of dogs and 71% of cats that enter animal shelters are euthanized. It is important to note that more cats are entering the shelter without identification and as such, it is hard to trace the owners. This explains the high number of cats that are euthanized. 15% of dogs and 2% of cats that enter an animal shelter are reunited with their owners.25% of dogs and 24% of cats that enter animal shelters are adopted by new owners. (American Humane Association, 2010)
Animals’ shelters are forced to euthanize animals for many reasons which include lack of funds, overcrowding, and lack of appropriate facilities to handle unique pets. During tough economic times, the amount of funds from private donors and local government to support animal shelters goes down. With low funds, animal shelters are not able to treat a sick animal or provide enough food. As such, many animals are euthanized. Many people facing foreclosures or who have lost jobs prefer to give up their pets. This has led to overcrowding, leading to reduced time for holding animals for adoption. Some pets such as iguana, turtles, etc., require special care, and as such, it is very hard to hard to find people willing to adopt them. As such, most of them are euthanized.
Works Cited
American Humane Association. (2010). Animal Shelter Euthanasia. Web.
Bairey, S. (2010). How much does it cost to own a pet? Web.
Balcom, S. A. (2000). Legislating a Solution to Animal Shelter Euthanasia. Web.
Caffrey, B. (2009). Pet Shelters in Central Valley Increase Euthanasia Rates. Web.
England, J. (2009). Animal Shelters in Dallas Overwhelmed by Pets. Web.
Karni, A. (2007). Pet-Renting Concept Termed ‘Shocking’. Web.
Knight, J. (2010). Owning a Pet Green Iguana. Web.
McGrath, L. (2007). Love on a Lease: Renting Man’s Best Friend. Web.
OES.org. (2009). Average Vet Costs – National. Web.
Pet Welcome Inc. (2010). Unable to Own a dog, Why not rent. Web.
Social/Historical/Rhetorical situation Euthanasia Movement in modern America faced
Dowbiggin (1) posits that survival for the fittest and dying for the less fit and the nineteenth century scientific innovations had a point of convergence with clamor for initiation of social reforms to enable Americans to embrace mercy killing in the last two centuries. Such a move had some similarity with the activities of the eugenics. Later in history, abortion, family planning, and birth control were linked to euthanasia movement. In the 1940s and the post war period, questions arose about the value of human life, and its termination. This necessitated heated public debates in the 1960’s. At that point in time, medical innovations ensured that patients lived longer but painful lives.
Emphasis was put on the quality of human life. Euthanasia was never seen as a social reform measure but as an entity anchored on personal choice. This elicited the use of the phrases ‘right to die’ and ‘the quality of life’. Dowbiggin asserts that it was not clear what the phrase the right to die exactly meant in the context of those who are old or chronically ill who are thought to be straining health care system. These issues elicited moral issues that divided supporters of the movement into advocates of passive and active euthanasia. The research paper seeks to illuminate social/historical/rhetorical situation the euthanasia society of America went through and how they used communication to their advantage in championing for their recognition.
Euthanasia movements in modern America perfected the art of rhetoric in their communication and this worked for them in terms of winning the heart of the public. This made sure that several legislations were effected in different states that favored these movements’ sentiments. Among the rhetoric they made use of was euphemism.
Euthanasia movement in America has undergone several transformations from time immemorial. In 1906 the first euthanasia bill was written in the State of Ohio. This bill was however not passed. Killick Millard in 1985 organized the first euthanasia society called the Euthanasia legalization society of London. In 1938, New York swathe birth of the national society for the legalization of euthanasia. It changes its name the same year to Euthanasia Society of America (Derek 5).
The name change was kind of a communication strategy aimed at blurring the vision of the general public from the actual activities they were taking part in. Euthanasia society of America in 1939 came up with a legislation limited to voluntary euthanasia. The society contemplated coming up with a legislation that allowed mercy killing to be done on non volunteer patients who could not be helped through conventional medical procedures.
Foster Kennedy the president of the society during that time addressed the Society of Medical Jurisprudence when he underscored the need for legalization of euthanasia in case where a child is born with a defect and is scared to remain so rather than allowing people who have incurable illnesses to opt for euthanasia. In 1952, pope Pius XII said that a major contrast in the words extraordinary and ordinary lied in sustainability of life. The pope was trying to clarify the blurred definition of ordinary and extraordinary that was advanced by euthanasia proponents. In 1965, the supreme court of the United States gave a ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut that guaranteed a right to privacy on contraceptives use.
The right soon embraced elements of euthanasia, homosexuality and abortion. This necessitated the starving to death of children who had spina bifida and Down syndrome. Sick adults who had sense of speech, sight, hearing and thought were subjected to involuntary euthanasia after that land mark court ruling. In 1967, the Euthanasia Society of America founded Euthanasia Education Fund later called Euthanasia education Council. The council was exempted from paying taxes.
The release to the general public of the modal ‘Living Will’ in the same year promoted debates on Euthanasia. Water Sackett’s effort to introduce a bill ‘right to die’ was futile. The Bill was anchored on the premise that the State of Florida spent much money on the children suffering from Down syndrome. In 1969, the state of Idaho adopted voluntary euthanasia bill. A publication by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross titled On Death and Dying made the public to critically interrogate issues pertaining to euthanasia and suicide. The book had heavy euphemistic undertones. In 1970, the state of Washington legalizes abortion on demand. This was orchestrated by the peoples vote.
The leader of the ballot initiative was among others Ralph Mero, the director at that time of Compassion in Dying an organization that promoted assisted suicide. The name was symbolically used. On the surface value it appeared to be toothless but had several death messages. He was an active proponent of imposed death. Later in life Mero was the leader of Hemlock society. He rallied for legalization of aid-in-dying. In the same year, the Euthanasia society began pushing for the ‘Living Will’ agenda. The ushering in of 1973 witnessed the release of Humanist Manifesto II. It directed that in order for freedom and dignity to be enhanced, one had to experience civil liberties.
The manifesto provided for recognition of ones right to die with dignity, mercy killing, and ones right to suicide. The supreme court of America ruling in Roe v Wade was used by many lower courts to validate euthanasia and infanticide. In 1974, a hospice was opened in New Haven by euthanasia crusaders. In 1975 there was change of name of Euthanasia Society of America to the Society for Right to Die. This was a euphemistic strategy. In 1976, the New Jersey Supreme court ruled in favor of proponents who advocated for removal of respirator that kept a patient alive. The court cited that the right to privacy encompassed patient’s right to turn down the use of life saving devices that are not extraordinary.
In 1977, California passed natural death act raising a white flag for ‘Living Will’. The Euthanasia Education Council in 1978 changed its name to Concern for Dying and became autonomous from the Society for the Right to Die. This was intended to make the public think that they were separate entities. In actual sense they derived motivation from encouraging euthanasia. The 1979 play ‘Whose life is it anyway?’ contributed to cases of assisted suicide. Jo Roman in the same year commits suicide in the presence of his friends after protracted fight with illness. The suicide was given publicity by the New York Times and public televisions.
In 1980, the Declaration on Euthanasia by the Catholic’s Congregation for the doctrine of Faith gave guidelines on catholic theology and actions that healthcare professionals are supposed to do pertaining to end of life. In the same year the Hemlock Society published a guide to how to suicide called Let me die before I wake. In 1983, Oklahoma Children’s Memorial Hospital physicians evaluated who were born with spina bifida and declared 33 of them unworthy to live. Parents of the 24 obliged to the doctors recommendations and the children were the starved to death. Elizabeth Bouvia who was suffering from cerebral palsy sued a California hospital for having refused to starve her to death while she was admitted at the facility.
She lost her suit but later appealed. By 1984, 22 states had adopted the legislation on ‘Living Will’. In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that food and water were in the same category with artificial respirators hence needed to be classified as extraordinary measures and finally withdrawn. It is during this time that the patient who was disconnected from a respirator died- a record nine years down the lane. Proponents of Montana State House of Representatives Bill 137 make fruitless efforts to legalize mercy killing. The Bill was intended to be a spat on the stand the religious took on euthanasia.
Betty Rollin a journalist with a television station published Last Wish an account of how she helped her mother to die. ABC later showed the movie version of the book. In 1986, the American Medical Association came up with a policy that the life of a patient in comma cannot be reversed and it is therefore ethically right to terminate life prolonging medical care. Hemlock Society forms a group called Americans Against Human Suffering whose aim was to entice the federal government to legalize aid in dying. After successful appeal, Elizabeth Bouvia is allowed to refuse forced feeding but refuses to take advantage of the court ruling (Derek 7).
She lived for more than ten years thereafter. In 1987, the American retirees gave a node to euthanasia citing that they worked tirelessly to ensure that the Living Will Act enactment. In the Modern Maturity issue the American retirees association promoted Hemlock, and other pro euthanasia organizations. In Nancy Ellen Jobes’ case the court ruled that the family had a right to refuse a patient access to medical care even when the patient does not indicate his or her wishes. In the year 1987, the total number of suicide cases in America got past 30 000 mark. The Americans against Human suffering in the 1988 California polls unsuccessfully campaigned for aid in dying.
This would have strengthened the already existing ‘Living Will’ in enabling doctors to kill the terminally ill patients if they requested for that. The same year witnessed publication of an anonymous article It’s over Debbie in the Journal of American Medical Association. The publication talked about a doctor who was administering a lethal injection to a patient suffering from cancer of the ovary. Efforts to apprehend the physician were fruitless. This is a perfect example of use morphism being used by euthanasia proponents to woo people into accepting euthanasia when they are suffering from incurable diseases.
The same year saw the first religious organization passing a resolution in support of euthanasia. This was the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. In 1990, Jack Kevorkian assisted Janet Adkins an Alzheimer patient to commit suicide to spare her the pain she had suffered. He does the same act for more than 120 people before he is apprehended and locked up in jail. All these acts prompted the Iowa University law class to come up with Aid-in- dying Act to legalize assisted suicide. The Act allowed even minors to be assisted to die. The Supreme Court ruling on Cruzan case allowed competent adults to refuse treatment.
The congress also adopted Patients Self Determination Act. This legislation compelled the hospitals that received federal funds to inform the patients that they are entitled to refuse or accept treatment. The patients were therefore allowed to commit him or herself to medical procedures by signing a form (Lehr 2). Some referred to the Act as a deficit cutting bill. In 1991 there was a merger between the Society for the Right to Die and Compassion for Dying to form Choice in Dying outfit. This was a pang of euphemism. Hemlock Society supported initiative 119 but failed by a margin of 54 against 46.
In the same year Derek Humphry rolled out an article Final Exit which became New York Times best seller. The author said the book gave accounts of how, where and when to kill yourself. Again this was an effective way of use of morphism to further their ends. In 1992, presidential hopefuls embarked on the need for rationing rising costs in health care. In 1993, Christine Busalacchi got starved to death. She was suffering from brain damage. In 1994 Barbara Rothstein became the first federal judge to deduce that the American constitution allowed one to aid another person’s death. Death with Dignity in Oregon allowed physicians to assist in suicide.
However, court order that was issued outlawed the use of Measure 16. In 1995, Pope John Paul Encyclical Evangelium Vitae confirmed the Catholic Church teaching against Euthanasia. In the same year the ruling on Compassion vs. Washington was overturned by the court of appeals ninth circuit. In 1996second circuit overturned New York state laws that outlawed assisted suicide. Disability rights group was formed. In 1997 the United States Supreme Court gave a ruling that rendered assisted suicide illegal. In April of the same year president Bill Clinton signed the assisted suicide funding restriction act to ensure that no federal monies were used funding assisted suicide.
The act however allowed monies to be used in encouraging death by starvation and dehydration. Between 1995 and 1997 a total of 50 bills that intended to allow assisted suicide by pro- euthanasia groups had been advanced. On November 4 1997, the state of Oregon voted against Measure 51. From the time of inception of Death with Dignity Act in Oregon a total of 292 people had died. It is feared that even many must have died but their records not in public domain.
In 1998, Michigan passed a legislation that incriminated assisted crime. Oregon Health Services Commission posited that money used in aiding physician assisted funding could actually come from state funds to avoid discrimination of the poor. In the year 1998, efforts to legalize physician assisted suicide through a poll in Michigan hit a snag when measure B was defeated by a margin of 70 to 30 per cent. In 1999, the man who assisted over 120 people to commit suicide, Jack Kevorkian was locked behind the bars for a quarter of a century on charges of second degree murder on Thomas Youk after a video of his death by lethal injection was premiered on television (Lori 3).
28 more people succumbed to death in Oregon on grounds of physician assisted suicides. In 2000, citizen’s ballot initiative which aimed at approving physician assisted suicide was defeated narrowly at the ballot. A total of 27 people died in Oregon out of physician assisted suicide. Oregon health department said that 63 per cent of those who died in the year 2000 intimated that they wanted to die because they saw themselves as a burden to their families. In 2001 it was learnt that 13 per cent of American population was 65 years old or older a complete contrast to 1935 five per cent. This showed that the average life expectancy leapt from 62 years to 76 years between the years1935 to 2001.
In 2005, Terry Schiavo was starved to death in Florida despite having shown signs of improving health. In 2007, Jack Kevorkian walks out of prison after serving only years of the 10 to 25 years sentence. He said that he would not engage in aiding people to kill themselves. He however confirmed that he would be a crusader for legalization of euthanasia (Derek 10). The people whom their lives were claimed as a result of Oregon Death with Dignity Act reached a record 300 in the year 2007.
Rhetorical Strategies used by Euthanasia movements
Some of these strategies were used by groups supporting voluntary euthanasia to further their courses. During the year 2005 academy awards, Million Dollar Baby scooped a total of 4 Oscars while the foreign based The Sea Aside won an Oscar for the best foreign film. These films had heavy euthanasia undertones. Million dollar baby was centered about a woman boxer who was quadriplegic. Her trainer was a practicing catholic who on realizing she didn’t want to live any longer assist her to commit suicide. The film depicted anti euthanasia crusaders as being so cold to the plight of the suffering and was a form of protest to their ‘ingenuity’.
The film Sea Aside was a real life story of Ramon Sampedro who was aided to die after becoming paraplegic. These films are strategically used to show the disadvantages of being paralyzed and the inability of law to address issues related to personal autonomy. This is a rhetorical strategy that has been used by many euthanasia films to win public sympathy by persuasion of people to support their ‘worthy course’ and to try to woo legislative bodies to change laws that touch on voluntary euthanasia (Eddy 179). A German artistic piece I Accuse features a beautiful woman of a renowned medic who is suffering from multiple sclerosis.
Her husband finally helps her in committing suicide by giving her poison. The woman tells the husband of her desire to die; the husband retorts that she was surely going to die. On hearing the news of her death, the woman reassures her husband of her love for him. The man answers back and says he surely loved her. The drama tries to persuade the legislative bodies to come to accept the wish of the patients with incurable diseases to take away their lives (Cranford 1). The husband is later arrested and taken to court where he testifies to have killed his wife because her disease was incurable. He is released without incarceration.
His release without imprisonment is a form of vilification to those opposed to euthanasia as people who are cold and insensitive to the plights of others. The artistic piece is also a manifest of criticism as a rhetorical strategy used by euthanasia movements. Such films were used by pro euthanasia activists to popularize voluntary euthanasia among the masses. The mass media communication theory strategy was strategically used in this aspect where ones opinion about euthanasia was shaped by the kind of the films he or she watched. Emotional response theory also find a perfect landing in this aspect as one would try to make decisions based on the emotions that the film he or she has watched evoked in him or her.
Apart from the use of films, proponents of euthanasia have perfected the art of use of euphemism. They have evolved and quite often use word s like compassion, choice and dignity in their advocacy. Pro euthanasia movements in America like the Euthanasia Society of America has undergone myriad name changes to earn positive public image like in the year 1976, the Euthanasia Society of America was named Society for the Right to Die. In 1991, the Society became known as Choice in Dying. In their advocacy they no longer use the terminology mercy killing. This term is nowadays widely used by their antagonists. They have even come up with vague meanings for the word euthanasia in their quest to have it legalized.
Meanings of words they use in their advocacy have kept on changing and shifting. They have shown renewed strength in making the unpalatable palatable (Marker 5). The proponents of euthanasia strongly believe that roads for euthanasia are built by definitions. When the campaigns to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide epitomized in California and Washington, euthanasia proponents used the phrase ‘Aid-in-dying’. Such words implied adjusting the people for the sick, wiping their brows and holding their hands. But the meaning of the phrase was more than the above stated meanings. It actually meant taking away the life of a patient.
Administration of lethal doses was concealed like the Friends of Initiative 119 were advised not to go into details of lethal injections as one of the avenues used in aiding in dying. Initiative 119 was touted as a movement that was interested in protecting the rights of patients. The general populace was told that such movements were interested in correcting flaws that were there in the Living Will law. News programs described such initiatives as geared towards clarification of ambiguity in the living will. In California, voters did realize that ‘aid in dying’ was sugar coated version of murder hence failure by the proposal to gain public approval.
After the California and Washington incidences proponents of euthanasia reframed their rhetoric. With Oregon being their next destination, a poll was commissioned by Euthanasia Research and Guidance Organization in 1993 to ascertain whether euphemism really aided their resolve to have euthanasia legalized. Findings of the research showed that people would only vote for laws having heavy euphemistic undertones. Sixty five per cent of people interviewed liked laws that used the term dying with dignity. This later became known as measure 16 hence the origin of Death with Dignity Act of the state of Oregon. The first draft was written by an attorney to Oregon Right to Die lobby group who was also a legal advisor to Hemlock Society (Eddy 179).
As euthanasia campaigns intensified, certain words and phrases had to be done away with. The phrase aid in dying was totally done away with in the titles, definitions, body and subheadings of their proposed legislations. Use of ambiguous phrases like death with dignity, dying a dignified death, and words humane and dignified became synonymous with euthanasia movements and the potential impact of use of these words on voters were critically looked at. Previous drafts had the phrase informed consent a word used in medical field to imply that the patient has full knowledge of whatever is to transpire during medical operations. When the proponents of euthanasia realized that the use of informed consent would present some problems they opted for use of informed decision.
Euthanasia and Assisted suicide have always euphemistically found a perfect replacement in gentle landing and deliverance respectively. Definitions of euthanasia and assisted have continued to be blurred. One word can be used to give many meanings. Such words are terminal, treatment, and care. To a lay man the word terminal means that death cannot be avoided despite the medical innovations that come into place. Proponents of euthanasia posit that accelerated death is only applicable to people with terminal illnesses. This influences the perspective of media coverage as was evidenced in Compassion in Dying v. Washington and Quill v. Vacco.
Here the mass media theory communication strategy is used to shape opinion. Laws also obscure meanings of specific words as seen in the interpretation of the word terminal by several courts and medical fields (State committee on Euthanasia 10). Policies like those relating to Veterans allow for patients who have minor complications like arthritis and mental illnesses to fall under the category of the terminally ill. Interpretation of the word treatment has also been pretty difficult.
Proponents of euthanasia have also taken advantage of this to further their courses. The word morphing coined from metamorphosis was extensively used by extensively to popularize euthanasia. It involves transformation of one image into another so that it becomes difficult to know the exact look of things. It is used in visual symbolism. Linguistic morphing was used by proponents of euthanasia as a persuasive approach. It frustrated efforts to subject issues euthanasia proponents advanced to critical analysis. It endeavored to change public perception of euthanasia. Efforts were made to baptize lethal injections and overdoses prescribed to willing parties o be categorized as treatments.
This was an attempt to create a bridge between the traditional meaning of treatment which meant an attempt to cure and fatal version that means killing. Heated debates have emanated on grounds of whether patients who are suffering from conditions like brain damage should be provided with food and fluids and whether removal of the foods and the fluids should be considered as removal of treatment (Van der Maas 13). This has necessitated the administration of lethal doses to patients under the pretence that the medical staff is providing treatment. Denial of nutrition is a sure way killing many biologically vulnerable patients.
Right to die activists capitalized on the removal of nutrition for the extremely sick patients whom their systems could not synthesize such food by saying that death b starvation and dehydration is so painful that patients wish to be given lethal injection should be granted. Denial of food and fluids was replaced with a more appealing removal of treatment. Proponents of euthanasia claimed that the use of gastronomy tube that is basically used to nourish patients in nursing homes and hospitals is risky and invasive yet it is a very simple medical procedure that can be done under local anesthesia. This was a perfect example of use of confrontational rhetoric. This trivialized the use of gastronomy tubes. Manipulative terminologies were used.
The meaning of the word treatment and care was blurred by euthanasia proponents. Food received through gastronomy tube was referred to as artificially implanted nutrition and hydration. This was meant to create an impression that food and nutrition are exotic medical remedies (Merritt 731).
Boundaries of treatment have been widened by euthanasia crusaders as to classify oral feeding as a medical intervention. Such crusaders advocate for the removal of oral feeding from the frail, patients with brain diseases who are non -dying. Even feeding of a patient with the aid of a spoon was classified as an artificial means. Euthanasia Educational Council now known as Choice in Dying listed dehydration as one of the ways used in ending life. They purported that the law allowed one to end his or her life by refusing to take food and water and a tray of food was taken to mean treatment. They said patients had a right to refuse to take food. Researches later showed that one who chooses to get dehydrated dies a honorable death.
After inception of Measure 16 in Oregon euthanasia’s rhetorical architects sprung into life as strategies were being put in place to come up with a label for the death producing medical interventions. Questions were asked about issuance of death certificates for patients who had died after being given lethal doses. In Oregon, phrases like compassion for dying were used to refer to people who were providing suicide assistance. Phrases like medical treatment or medical function was used to refer to actions that had consequences of death. Other communication theory strategy that were successfully used by the euthanasia movements in modern America included social process theory, cognitive theory, ideation theory, and stage/step theory to woo people to their side.
Conclusion
As witnessed above sensationalism, euphemism, open defiance to law, and trying to relate certain activities to fiery historical figures like Hitler of the Nazi Germany achieve the intended goal of wooing your unsuspecting converts into accepting your ideologies.
This is witnessed in the American Euthanasia Movements ability to win public sympathy by use of morphosis to render the meaning of treatment ambiguous. Films were effectively used to appeal to authorities to allow people who have incurable diseases to be assisted to die. The inability of legal and medical system to come up with proper meanings of treatment and termination has been a leeway for perpetrators of euthanasia. Other rhetorical strategies used though minimally were protests and internal rhetoric.
Works Cited
Cranford, Ronald. “Termination of Treatment in the Persistent Vegetative State,” Seminars in Neurology. 4 (1984). 41.
Derek, Humphry. A twentieth century chronology of assisted suicide and physician assisted suicide 1906-2000. NY: AUP, 2005. Print.
Dowbiggin, Ian. Merciful end: Euthanasia movement in modern America, NY: OUP, 2003. Print.
Eddy, David, “A Conversation with My Mother,” Journal of the American Medical Association. 272,( 3), 179-181. 1994.
Lehr, Dick. Supporting those who want to die: A Seattle group, including doctors and clergy, offers help and advice for the suicidal. Boston Globe, 1994.
Lori, Montgomery. The options – legal and not. Detroit: Detroit Free Press, 1996. Print.
Marker, Rita and Smith, Wesley. The Art of Verbal Engineering. Steubenville, OH: Law Review, 1996. Print.
Merritt, Tracy L.. “Equality for the Elderly Incompetent: A Proposal for Dignified Death,” Stanford Law Review, vol. 39 (1987), p. 731.
State Committee on Euthanasia.Report on Euthanasia. The Hague: Government Printing Office, 1985. Print.
Van der Maas, Paul J. Euthanasia and Other Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life. Amsterdam; New York: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1992. Print.
According to Baron, Harris, and Hilton (2009), euthanasia refers to a planned method of ending the life of a terminally ill patient. Some people prefer euthanasia as a means of relieving the pain and distress of patients. However, euthanasia has legal and ethical considerations. Euthanasia can be either voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some states, whereas involuntary euthanasia is illegal in all states and therefore, treated as murder. Bowen and Lawler (2005) argue that euthanasia is a controversial issue because of the prevailing different religious, moral, legal, and philosophical views. Davis (1999) argues that there exists a challenge on how to establish a consensus in the competing views regarding the desire for patients to have the choice to die with dignity while under pain and distress or the right to endorse the inherent right to life for everybody, as depicted by the law. There, has been a lot of effort to legalize euthanasia in Australia, but in vain. There was the legalization of euthanasia in northern Australia for a short period. However, the legislation lacked sufficient protection of patients and was thus abolished. The legislation had given doctors freedom for carrying out medication that kills patients, without evidence of the patients’ consent.
This was a wrong move because unethical physicians could collaborate with corrupt parties and terminate the life of patients involuntarily for personal benefits. For instance, the controversial case involving Justin and Jennings’s persecution for supporting Wylie’s euthanasia after suffering from Alzheimer’s is a good example. The Jury argued that without the presence of consent, it is difficult for the court to differentiate euthanasia and another illegitimate ending of life. Evidence presented against Justin showed that Justin had failed to assess whether Wyllie had the mental capacity to determine the end of his life. Moreover, there was more complication when evidence showed that Wylie had changed his will in favor of Justin at the expense of his children before his death. This could have been the cause for Wylie’s death. Lack of clear patients’ consent in euthanasia is one of the reasons why many states had not legalized it. The Jury ruled against Justin, despite Dr. Nitschke arguing that Wylie had always wanted to die after suffering from Alzheimer’s. The argument presented was void because there was no evidence, witness, or any written documentation that supported Dr. Nitschke’s argument. Therefore, it was likely that Justin assisted in ending Wylie’s life to benefit from the altered will (Clayfield, 2008).
Loasby (2006), claims that both voluntary and involuntary euthanasia is contentious. The law in many states upholds the inherent right of life for everyone. Thus, the law does not support euthanasia, which some people consider as a proper method to end the pain and suffering of the terminally ill. According to Hull (2003), euthanasia raises the moral question of who has the right to end life. The case becomes more controversial when the patient opts to ends his/her life by taking an overdose of the prescribed medicine. For instance, Dr. Nitschke faced after being accused for assisting Mrs. Hall with euthanasia by taking an overdose of morphine, which was a prescription for relieving pain. Most patients who suffer from terminal diseases receive palliative care to relieve their pain and distress. The palliative care they receive apart from relieving their pains and distress has a secondary effect of hastening death (Logab & Robotham, 2008). Euthanasia has moral and legal issues and thus, doctors should not support euthanasia. However, they should give palliative care to patients suffering from a terminal illness, even if it means prescribing drugs that hasten the death of patients. This is important in relieving the pain and distress of the patients.
References
Baron, S., Harris, K., and Hilton, T. (2009). Legal Issues of Euthanasia. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bowen, D.E. and Lawler, E.E., (2005). Ethical Consideration of Euthanasia. International Journal of Medicine. 5, 3, 31-39.
Clayfield, M. (2008). Euthanasia Law Expert Margaret Otlowski Backs Jury. Web.
The debates around the practice of mercy killing – that is, euthanasia – have been going on for decades. For instance, the American Medical Association (AMA) distinguishes active euthanasia – prohibited due to being contrary to the medical professions’ beliefs – from passive euthanasia – deemed permissible since no direct action to kill is taken. James Rachels argues that not only are the two not so different from one another from an ethical point of view, but that active euthanasia might even be more favorable in terms of humanity of patient treatment.
The author puts forward four arguments to prove his point. First of all, sometimes letting someone die is more humane that let them suffer until dying. Supposing, one’s days are certainly over and they are in terrible pain. Both the patient and their family agree that it is reasonable to put an end to it. According to AMA, the only thing a doctor can do is to simply withhold treatment without doing anything beyond that – instead of giving lethal injection and stopping the agony.
Secondly, the matters of life and death are frequently handled inadequately. An example of that would be parents deciding on a life of their infant with a Down’s syndrome seemingly based on a baby’s need for an operation for another minor defect. Rachels deems it absurd, since the choice is to clearly be made regarding the syndrome, not trivial problems that make no major difference whatsoever.
Thirdly, moral difference between allowing a person to die and killing them is non-existent. If one’s intentions are good, – or bad – the moral positions of an active participator and an uninvolved spectator are the same. Lastly, the AMA’s implication that only a doctor’s actions are deliberate termination of life is invalid. The author claims that the lack of action is to be considered action as well; in other words, not doing anything is also doing something, thus, the AMA’s wording is debatable.
In conclusion, there is not that big of dissimilarity morally concerning active and passive euthanasia. Rachels suggests that the stance of the American Medical Association on that issue is ill-founded. Sometimes intentional intervention is more reasonable and humane that refraining from doing that, and the legal point of view on euthanasia has to be reconsidered.
Roger Scruton, Sexual Morality
Traditional notions of sex and sexuality are now considered to be highly controversial in Western societies. Roger Scruton was someone who contributed to those, being a well-known advocate for traditionalist conservative views. In a chapter of his book Sexual Desire: A Philosophical Investigation Scruton speaks about sexual desire and erotic love and introduces the notion of sexual morality.
Essentially, sexual morality is the study of human sexuality and the expression of human sexual behavior. According to Scruton, morality is a constraint upon reasons for action and a normal consequence of the possession of a first-person perspective. Therefore, sexual desire and erotic love are parts of human nature. The author argues that the capacity for erotic love is a virtue. Moreover, sexual virtue involves avoiding habits that impede the development of the sexual impulse towards love, as well as acquiring dispositions that encourage that development. For Scruton, sexual morality includes the condemnation of lust and perversion – that is, sexual behavior that is not considered normal. Additionally, sexual discourse turned out to be the discussion of disconnecting sex and marriage.
The acceptance of sexual gratification as an end in itself enabled people to challenge the belief that intimate sexual activity should be limited to marriage. Thus, a liberal discourse emerged, which argued that sexual intimacy involving consenting people who are not married nor plan to marry is acceptable.
In conclusion, the sexualization of the culture undoubtedly contributed to the occurrence of sexual activity in places and among persons formerly prohibited. It is unclear whether Scruton viewed it as a good or a bad thing, but, considering him being a conservative, one might deduce it themselves. Either way, the destruction of particular borders and the following liberation of people can barely be considered a bad thing.
References
Rachels, J. (1975). Active and passive euthanasia. In J.M. Humber (Ed.), Biomedical Ethics and the Law, (pp. 511-516). Springer. Web.
Scruton, R. (1986). Sexual desire: A philosophical investigation. Bloomsbury Publishing.
The subject of euthanasia is an extremely delicate topic of discussion which is surrounded by numerous ethical debates. Generally speaking, euthanasia as a term is used to describe deliberate action to painlessly terminate a person’s life to put an end to their pain. On the one hand, advocates of euthanasia speak about one’s right to make their own decision in regard to life and death and call the act ‘mercy killing’ due to it relieving people of suffering. On the other hand, euthanasia opponents argue about the sanctity of life and equal the act to murder. However, from the point of view of a few ethical theories – namely, teleology, deontology, and Levina’s “face of the other” – euthanasia is deeply unethical and contradicts all possible moral laws.
Teleology is the study of things in terms of the purposes they serve, and it was heavily relied on by Aristotle. He believed that there was a reason for everything – including human life: he saw it as organized and directed towards the final end. As for what Aristotle considered the final end, it was “complete good” – happiness, the ultimate goal of all our activities that renders a human life “in need of nothing” (Aristotle, 2017, p. 247). Evidently, all of our activities are aimed at achieving a goal, although most of them are means to achieving other goals. Happiness is a goal in and of itself – the ultimate goal; as such, it is the highest good. The problem is that different people tend to disagree with what makes life happy or good – the goal of ethics is to answer this question. However, it is unlikely for that answer to be death – which is the outcome of euthanasia; therefore, one can conclude that the practice of euthanasia would be deemed unethical from Aristotle’s perspective.
The theory of deontology is the theory according to which people have a moral obligation to act in concordance with a particular set of rules and principles. Immanuel Kant was this theory’s prominent advocate, and he formulated its most substantial form. As opposed to deontological theory’s religious interpretations, Kant’s theory’s rules are derived from the human mind. As per Kant, “some actions are inherently wrong,” even if they lead to a remarkable outcome (Kant, 2019, p. 30). This is the way actions are evaluated in deontology – regardless of the end result. In regard to euthanasia, the end result can be considered good – a person is able to escape suffering. However, from a moral viewpoint, ending someone else’s life would most likely be deemed inherently wrong. Therefore, the act of euthanasia is unethical from the perspective of Kant’s deontological theory as well.
“Face of the other” is the theory of Emmanuel Lévinas – a French philosopher of the 20th century – that proposes that people are responsible for one another in face-to-face encounters. He stated that his ethical relation to loving others comes from his inability to survive alone and find meaning “within its own being-in-the-world, within the ontology of sameness” (My Jewish Learning, n.d.). According to Lévinas, another person’s right to exist takes precedence over one’s own right, and it is embodied in an ethical decree: one shall not kill, and one shall not endanger the life of another. Consequently, from this perspective, the act of euthanasia would be regarded as violence to someone else’s life.
As a result, euthanasia is likely to be considered unethical from the point of view of any of these theories. From a teleological viewpoint, things that lead to one’s life being happy or good cannot be pursued – therefore, euthanasia, with its end result being death, could hardly be viewed as something positive. Moreover, in accordance with Kant’s deontological theory, there are acts that are always wrong, regardless of the outcome, which fits euthanasia – essentially, a killing that frees one of pain. Additionally, Lévinas speaks about putting someone’s life higher than his own due to the existence being meaningful only with others in it – euthanasia, from his perspective, would be deemed an infringement on another’s life.
References
Aristotle. (2017). Nicomachean ethics. Lulu.com.
Kant, I. (2019). Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. (C. Bennett, J. Saunders & R. Stern, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1785).
My Jewish Learning. (n.d.). Responsibility in the Face of the Other. Web.
Dating back to ancient Greece and Rome, the debates concerning the procedure called euthanasia have been among the debatable ones and have become one of the most investigated subjects of bioethics. Despite the advancements in medicine and healthcare, many patients, even in the most affluent states, still, die in discomfort. Therefore, such countries as the United States and the United Kingdom are trying to enact a policy that would grant a doctor a lawful right to end a suffering patient’s life on request (Keown, 2018). The purpose of this paper is to prove why euthanasia should be allowed in the United States and why people sufficing from chronic and incurable diseases should be allowed to end their life.
The discussions of euthanasia implementation in the United States began in the early 19th century after the development of ether, which was applied to pain-relieving. In the early 1900s, advocates commenced arguing for legalizing euthanasia, casting aside religious or moral beliefs (Dugdale et al., 2019). However, the process waned for some decades and revived only in the 1960s under the right-to-die heading, which implied physician-assisted death. In the 1990s, patients suffering from chronic or incurable diseases had a right to decline to receive medical treatment if they chose to (Dugdale et al., 2019). Oregon was the first state to validate such power in 1997. Later, Washington, Maine, California, Vermont, Colorado, Oregon, and Montana accepted the assisted suicide/death procedure. Therefore, as euthanasia is still banned in most of the United States, I believe it is necessary to enact a policy allowing severely ill patients to choose what to do with their life.
I firmly believe that euthanasia should be legalized in all states. First and foremost, people are endowed with a right to choose, so they should decide what to do with their lives. Secondly, I am sure that for terminally ill people, it would be the best option to be assisted in dying rather than commit suicide. Finally, I assert that aid in dying is a necessary measure for relieving someone’s pain. As for the main policy drivers, access, quality, and cost will be the main focus. The health care policy concerning euthanasia will have to be accessible first. Moreover, it should be of high quality to prove the safety of a method. Eventually, the cost containment must be kept so as not to cause financial burdens on one.
The first rationale concerns the study of bioethics and its principles: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. The question of euthanasia primarily relates to the law of autonomy which nowadays significantly influences U.S. healthcare politics. Keown (2018) stated that the modern approach to autonomy as a value had given rise to supporting voluntary euthanasia. According to Dugdale et al. (2019), “autonomy refers to governance over one’s own actions” (p. 748). The statement implies that while in medical settings, the patient decides what medications or treatments to forego. Researchers state that “patient autonomy serves as the justification for informed consent” (Dugdale et al., 2019, p. 748). It means that only after a thorough evaluation of risks and benefits coming from medical intervention, a patient can become a stakeholder in a decision-making process concerning their health. Therefore, assisting a patient’s death does not exclude palliative care that makes a death with dignity a possible option respecting a person’s autonomy.
The second rationale supporting the euthanasia implementation across the U.S. is propped by the fact that this method relieves suffering and pain. The primary purpose of every medical worker is to alleviate pain and cure a person of a disease (Mason et al., 2016). Hippocratic Oath proclaims helping ill people as a chief principle and not administering any risks that could destroy a patient’s health (Mason et al., 2016). In this case, in order to relieve someone’s pain, it is necessary to resort to aid in dying, especially to alleviate people with chronic or terminal illnesses. Therefore, the Hippocratic Oath also implies assisting someone in death due to their request for help.
Another point I consider essential in issuing a healthcare policy concerning voluntary euthanasia deals with the safety of the procedure. According to some researchers, “aid in dying is lauded by advocates for being a safe medical” (Dugdale et al., 2019, p. 748). This aid provides safety of the method because the doctors can ensure secure death, whereas suicide cannot. One may use the wrong medications and merely cause more harm to oneself. In addition to this, the lethal drugs must be high-quality to ensure safety. Therefore, the key stakeholders in the procedure are the patients themselves and the doctor.
Assisted death is tautly connected with ethical virtue theory which underlies the concepts of being good and compassionate instead of acting well. Thus, if a physician has such virtues, they will be able to perceive a patient’s pain. Jordan (2017) asserts that “these virtues help guide the physicians in their decision-making and actions in regards to helping their patients” (p. 6). Another ethical theory was suggested by Kant, who claimed that people should respect not only themselves but others too. According to Jordan (2017), “the notion of respecting others and not treating a person strictly as a means to an end is a key point in morality” (p. 5). Therefore, this theory seems beneficial to both sides.
Taking all the things into consideration, it seems reasonable to state that physicians’ aid in dying is still controversial to patient care. Although, I believe euthanasia must be legalized in the United States to ensure each person’s rights are respected. The procedure should be accessible and qualitative to ensure safety while assisting death. Moreover, the principles of ethics are aimed towards helping people, even if such assistance includes euthanasia.
References
Dugdale, L., Lerner, B., & Callahan, D. (2019). Pros and cons of physician aid in dying. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 92(4), 747–750.
Jordan, M. (2017). The ethical considerations of physician-assisted suicide. Dialogue & Nexus, 4, 1-7.
Mason, D., Gardner, D., Outlaw, F., & O’Grady, E. (2016). Policy & politics in nursing and health care. Elsevier.