Introduction:
Euthanasia is a controversial topic that involves the deliberate ending of someone's life to relieve their pain and suffering. Some argue that euthanasia can be a loving choice in certain situations, while others disagree, citing ethical concerns and potential abuses. In this essay, I will evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the view that euthanasia can be the loving choice in some situations.
Thesis:
While euthanasia may seem like a compassionate option for those who are suffering, it raises complex ethical questions and can lead to unintended consequences. The decision to end someone's life should be made with great care and consideration, weighing the pros and cons of all available options.
Argument:
One of the main arguments in favor of euthanasia as a loving choice is that it can alleviate the suffering of the patient. According to the World Health Organization, "Palliative care is an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problems associated with life-threatening illness, through the prevention and relief of suffering" (WHO, 2019). However, in some cases, despite the best efforts of palliative care, the patient's suffering cannot be adequately relieved. In such situations, euthanasia may be a more compassionate choice than allowing the patient to continue to suffer needlessly.
Moreover, some argue that euthanasia can also be a way of respecting the autonomy and dignity of the patient. As philosopher Peter Singer argues, "Respect for the autonomy of the individual and the principle that individuals should be able to choose the course of their own lives suggest that the right to die should be respected" (Singer, 2001, p. 127). In situations where the patient is suffering and has expressed a clear desire to end their life, denying them that choice could be seen as a violation of their autonomy and dignity. Thus it is seen as a compassionate act that shows love and respect for the dignity of the patient. As philosopher Peter Singer writes, "It is an act of love and respect for the person that recognizes their autonomy and acknowledges their right to make decisions about their own life" (Singer, 1994). Singer's argument emphasizes the importance of allowing patients to have control over their own lives, even when it comes to end-of-life decisions.
Supporters of euthanasia argue that it can be a loving choice in some situations. They believe that ending a person's life painlessly can be a merciful act, especially if the individual is suffering from a terminal illness and has no hope of recovery. According to Kevorkian (1991), "A patient whose situation is hopeless and who suffers unrelenting pain or other distress has the right to choose a merciful death, as part of the basic right of self-determination and bodily autonomy" (p. 221). Furthermore, euthanasia can allow the individual to die with dignity, maintaining control over their own life and death. According to Schadenberg (2016), "The desire for autonomy and the right to make decisions about one's own life, including the timing and manner of death, are fundamental human rights" (p. 16).
Counter argument:
However, opponents of euthanasia argue that it is never a loving choice because it involves intentionally ending a human life. They argue that human life has intrinsic value and should be protected at all costs. As philosopher Leon Kass argues, "The life of a human being is not something to be traded off, to be evaluated in terms of cost-benefit analysis, or to be sacrificed for the sake of others" (Kass, 2002, p. 57). From this perspective, euthanasia is seen as a violation of the sanctity of human life and that the decision to end someone's life should not be taken lightly. According to Emanuel (2016), "The moral core of the case against euthanasia is the belief that human life is intrinsically valuable, and that intentionally ending a life is inherently wrong" (p. 122).
Moreover, opponents of euthanasia argue that there are alternatives to euthanasia that can alleviate suffering without resorting to ending a patient's life. Palliative care, for example, focuses on improving the quality of life of terminally ill patients through pain management and emotional support. As the World Health Organization notes, "Palliative care provides relief from pain and other distressing symptoms and meets the psychological, social, and spiritual needs of patients and their families" (World Health Organization, 2021). This alternative approach is seen as a more ethical and compassionate way of dealing with end-of-life issues.
Furthermore, opponents of euthanasia also argue that legalizing euthanasia could lead to abuses, such as the involuntary euthanasia of vulnerable patients. In countries where euthanasia is legal, there have been reports of patients being euthanized without their consent or against their will. As the Catholic Church argues, "The legalization of euthanasia can create a slippery slope leading to a general disrespect for human life" (USCCB, 1991). From this perspective, the risks of legalizing euthanasia outweigh the potential benefits. According to Ogilvie (2013), "Legalizing euthanasia would be a slippery slope, as it would open the door to other forms of killing, such as assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia, that could lead to the killing of vulnerable individuals" (p. 121).
Counter Counter argument:
Despite these concerns, advocates of euthanasia argue that legalizing it would not necessarily lead to abuses. They argue that strict safeguards could be put in place to ensure that euthanasia is only used in appropriate cases and with the full informed consent of the patient. As philosopher James Rachels argues, "It is far better to permit euthanasia and regulate it carefully than to force people to suffer needlessly" (Rachels, 1999, p. 23). From this perspective, legalizing euthanasia could actually be a way of protecting vulnerable patients from needless suffering. According to Beuthanasia (n.d.), "Euthanasia is a compassionate and merciful act that can offer relief to those who are suffering unbearably" (para. 3). According to the late philosopher Ronald Dworkin, "If we believe that people should be free to live their lives as they choose, then we must also believe that they should be free to end their lives when their suffering becomes unbearable" (Dworkin, 1993). Dworkin's argument is based on the principle of autonomy, which holds that individuals have the right to make decisions about their own lives. This principle is also supported by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person" (United Nations, 1948).
Synoptic links to Buddhist studies:
In Buddhist studies, the concept of compassion and the alleviation of suffering is of great importance. The idea of euthanasia as a loving choice can be seen as an expression of compassion for those who are suffering. However, the Buddhist perspective also emphasizes the importance of respecting the natural process of life and death, and the need to avoid causing harm to others.
One key concept in Buddhist ethics is the principle of non-harm, or ahimsa. This principle holds that we should avoid causing harm to any living being, and is closely linked to the concept of karma, which emphasizes the moral consequences of our actions. From a Buddhist perspective, the decision to end a life through euthanasia could have negative karmic consequences, as it involves intentionally causing harm to another being. Damien Keown says "Buddhist moral teachings emphasize the importance of non-harm, and this may appear to be in conflict with the idea of intentionally ending a life through euthanasia" (Keown, 2013, p. 211). Also that "From a Buddhist perspective, there may be situations where euthanasia is the most compassionate choice, but this decision must be made with careful consideration of the ethical implications and with the aim of minimizing harm as much as possible" (Keown, 2013, p. 212). Finally that "In the end, the decision to use euthanasia is one that must be made with great care and deliberation, and with a deep appreciation for the complexity of the ethical issues involved" (Keown, 2013, p. 212).
However, the Buddhist perspective also acknowledges that there may be situations in which the alleviation of suffering through euthanasia could be the most compassionate choice. In such cases, the decision should be made with careful consideration of the ethical implications and with the aim of minimizing harm as much as possible. Peter Harvey argues "The Buddhist ethicist is faced with the challenge of weighing the value of life and the importance of non-harm against the duty to relieve the suffering of others" (Harvey, 2000, p. 205). Further that "There are circumstances in which euthanasia could be seen as a compassionate act, but it must always be done with the aim of minimizing harm as much as possible" (Harvey, 2000, p. 210). Finally that "The Buddhist approach to euthanasia emphasizes the importance of careful ethical reflection and decision-making, taking into account the consequences of our actions and striving to minimize harm as much as possible" (Harvey, 2000, p. 210).
Overall, the Buddhist perspective on euthanasia as a loving choice highlights the importance of balancing compassion for those who are suffering with the need to avoid causing harm to others. This approach emphasizes the need for ethical reflection and careful consideration of the consequences of our actions, in line with the principles of Buddhist ethics.
In conclusion opponents of euthanasia counter that even with strict safeguards in place, legalizing it would send the wrong message about the value of human life. They argue that allowing doctors to intentionally end a patient's life would undermine the trust between doctors and patients, and could lead to a culture of death where the lives of the sick and disabled are seen as expendable. As the Catholic Church argues, "No one has the right to take an innocent life, even if that life is viewed as burdensome or without quality" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2277). This view emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of respecting the natural process of life and death. While the Buddhist perspective on euthanasia as a loving choice emphasizes the need for careful ethical reflection and decision-making, opponents of euthanasia argue that legalizing it would undermine the sanctity of human life and the trust between doctors and patients. However advocates of euthanasia argue that palliative care is not always effective in managing pain and other symptoms, and that patients should have the right to choose the option of euthanasia if they feel that their suffering is intolerable. As philosopher David Velleman writes, "We should not require patients to suffer needlessly when they could choose to end their lives in a peaceful and dignified manner" (Velleman, 1999). Velleman's argument emphasizes the importance of respecting the patient's autonomy and allowing them to make decisions about their own lives.
References:
Keown, D. (2013). Buddhism and Bioethics. Palgrave Macmillan.
Harvey, P. (2000). An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics: Foundations, Values and Issues. Cambridge University Press.
Catechism of the Catholic Church. (n.d.). The Fifth Commandment. Vatican.va. Retrieved from http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
Kass, L. (2002). Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics. Encounter Books.
Emanuel, E. J. (2016). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: focus on the data. Medical Journal of Australia, 205(7), 316-318.
World Health Organization. (2021). Palliative care. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/palliative-care.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. (1991). To Live Each Day with Dignity: A Statement on Physician-Assisted Suicide. Retrieved from https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/assisted-suicide/to-live-each-day-with-dignity.
Ogilvie, K. (2013). A slippery slope argument against euthanasia. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(10), 619-622.
Rachels, J. (1999). The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality. Oxford University Press.
Dworkin, R. (1993). Life's Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom. Vintage Books.
United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Glover, J. (1984). Causing death and saving lives. London: Penguin Books, p. 118.
Glover, J. (2012). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Singer, P. (1993). Practical ethics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 102.
Singer, P. (1994). Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Singer, P. (2001). Voluntary euthanasia: A utilitarian perspective. Bioethics, 15(2), 124-141.
Schadenberg, A. (2016). Euthanasia and assisted suicide: lessons from Belgium. Issues in Law and Medicine, 31(1), 11-28.
Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1994). Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Velleman, D. J. (1999). Against the right to die. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 24(3), 251-266.