Argument 1 - Passive Euthanasia

Passive euthanasia is morally acceptable and should be made legal. This form of euthanasia is when life support, such as feeding tubes and respirators, are withdrawn or omitted. The patient is fully competent and aware of these actions and chooses to be taken off of artificial means of survival. This method is moral in the sense that it doesn’t involve killing, it is merely “letting die”. While this might sound unacceptable, all it is doing is allowing the terminal illness or disease to take its natural course. The Vatican claims that “disproportionate” means should not be taken to keep a body living, but they insist that feeding tubes and the like are “proportionate” and therefore must be used. However, when a patient is totally dependent upon respirators and artificial nourishment, this places a heavy mental, physical, and financial burden on them and their family members. If the means of survival are essentially the only things keeping them alive when they’ve lost control of body functions and other physical capabilities, when they’ve suffered immense pain and succumbed to incurable disease, the life support is futile. It may keep their body alive, but their spirit, will, and reason to live have all diminished. The Vatican should re-evaluate what they consider to be the “heavy burdens” that distinguish between proportionate and disproportionate methods of survival. For these reasons, passive euthanasia is morally acceptable.

It should also be legal because it is not injecting or prescribing lethal doses of medication to cause death. It does not put doctors at risk with the Drug Enforcement Association for providing lethal medication nor does it incriminate them for “murdering” a patient. They are just listening to the consent of the patient. In the absence of advance directives, which are documents or health care proxies that inform the doctor what the patient wants in terms of treatment and survival means, many claim that the doctor should keep the patient “alive” at all costs. If the patient has a living will that calls for no artificial means of survival, it is not considered wrong when they are taken off of life support and left to handle whatever natural direction the disease takes. But if the patient is without a living will, this same request to be taken off of artificial means of life is viewed as suicide and is therefore deemed unacceptable. In reality, the living will is no different from a competent patient’s request, and therefore passive euthanasia should be legal.

Pros and Cons

Pro: Proponents of euthanasia believe that it is acceptable because it helps people die a dignified death. They think that when death is in sight and damage to health is irrevocable, euthanasia is a way to ease suffering and end the pain. Additionally, they feel that being able to die before the illness takes over body and mind helps to keep a patient’s quality of life from deteriorating. Financially, many argue that once a person has shown no signs of life, for example when they’ve been unconscious or in a coma for a long period of time, it is more sensible to remove the expensive forms of life care that are keeping the brain-dead person alive. That way, the family will not be plagued by expensive health bills resulting from futile efforts to nourish a person who shows no sign of recovering. Furthermore, with advance directives like living wills and health care proxies, it is legal that treatment can be withheld and proponents of euthanasia argue that if that is legal, other forms of euthanasia should be as well. They feel that a doctor is not going against his job if he can “let die” rather than kill the patient.

Con: People who oppose euthanasia are very passionate about their arguments. Many feel that it is God’s decision that mandates who should be taken and when they should be taken from the earth. They feel that it is not a doctor’s right to make the decision about whether a person should live or die. Furthermore, the church condemns euthanasia and considers it to be murder. Other groups are focused more on the legal aspect of euthanasia rather than the religious. They claim it goes against the Hippocratic Oath of a doctor and places them in the position of being sued or arrested. Additionally, they worry about the individuals who are in a coma or otherwise unable to voice their opinions and who don’t have advance directives. They believe that if someone cannot express what they wish to happen to them, it is not the doctor’s right to decide whether or not they will survive.

Me: I believe that there are certain forms of acceptable euthanasia and other types that are immoral. I sympathize with people who claim that the quality of life is greatly diminished once someone succumbs to a disease and they cannot ever recover. I also believe that it is a patient’s individual right to decide if they want to withhold treatment or not. I don’t, however, believe a doctor should administer a drug for the purpose of killing someone nor do I feel they should prescribe medicine for a person to take with the intention of killing themselves. I think if a person really wants to die, it is not the doctor’s job to make that happen.

Entry 1 - Introduction

The issue I’m going to research is Euthanasia.  The topic has been the focus of debate in the medical field for several decades.  It has grown more controversial in recent years due to the tragic case of Terri Schiavo and the arrest of Jack Kevorkian, the doctor commonly referred to as Dr. Death.  There are several types of euthanasia: voluntary active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, non-voluntary euthanasia, and physician-assisted suicide.  Some people view these practices as moral because they allow the patient to “die with dignity” rather than suffer a prolonged death. Others believe any form of euthanasia is unethical and immoral because they feel it goes against a doctor’s profession and interferes with God’s will.  Still others find certain forms to be acceptable while deeming others objectionable. So far, the amount of research I’ve done, the information I’ve collected, and my own personal experiences have led me to sympathize most with this last group. Currently, my great aunt is very ill and her poor health has prompted family discussions about living wills, health care proxies, and the quality of life.  My research paper is going to focus on the different forms of euthanasia as well as the legal and moral implications that accompany each.  What role does religion play? What role does the state play? What other factors decide whether each form is an act of compassion or murder?