Euthanasia is Morally Correct
"The third night that I roomed with Jack in our tiny double room, in
the solid-tumor ward of the cancer clinic of the National Institute of
Health in Maryland, a terrible thought occurred to me. Jack had a melanoma
in his belly, a malignant solid tumor that the doctors guessed was the size
of a softball. The doctors planned to remove the tumor, but they knew Jack
would soon die. The cancer had now spread out of control. Jack, about 28,
was in constant pain, and his doctor had prescribed an intravenous shot, a
pain killer, and this would control the pain for perhaps two hours or a bit
more. Then he would begin to moan, or whimper, very low, as though he
didn't want to wake me. Then he would begin to howl, like a dog. When
this happened, he would ring for a nurse, and ask for the pain-killer. The
third night of his routine, a terrible thought occurred to me. 'If Jack
were a dog, I thought, what would be done to him?' The answer was obvious:
the pound, and the chloroform. No human being with a spark of pity could
let a living thing suffer so, to no good end." (James Rachel's The
Morality of Euthanasia)
The experience of Stewart Alsop, a respected journalist, who died in
1975 of a rare form of cancer gave an example on the morality of euthanasia.
Before he died, he wrote movingly of his experiences with another terminal
patient. Although he had not thought much about euthanasia before, he came
to approve of it after sharing a room with Jack. While growing up, each of
us learns a large number of rules of conduct. Which rules we learn will
depend on the kind of society we live in and the parents and the friends we
have. We may learn to be honest, to be loyal, and to work hard. Sometimes
we learn a rule without understanding its point. In most cases this may
work out, for the rule may be designed to cover ordinary circumstances, but
when faced with unusual situations, we may be in trouble. This situation
is the same with moral rules. Without understanding the rules, we may come
to think of it as a mark of virtue that we will not consider making
exceptions to. We need a way of understanding the morality against killing.
The point is not to preserve every living thing possible, but to protect
the interests of individuals to have the right of choice to die.
People who oppose euthanasia have argued constantly doctors have
often been known to miscalculate or to make mistakes. Death is final and
irreversible; in some cases doctors have wrongly made diagnostic errors
during a check-up. Patients being told they have cancer or AIDS, by their
doctors' mistake, have killed themselves to avoid the pain. Gay-Williams,
The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia, stated:
"Contemporary medicine has high standards of excellence and a proven
record of accomplishment, but it does not possess perfect and complete
knowledge. A mistaken diagnosis is possible. We may believe that we are
dying of a disease
when, as a matter of fact, we may not be. . . ." (419)
Williams explains that patients who have been told by their doctors they
have cancer never actually had it. But there have been so few cases
reported that these remarks are often considered to be speculations. The
individual should have been able to continue living until he felt the need
to be confined to a bed. I cannot disagree with the fact that doctors do
make mistakes, but they are more correct than they are wrong. Let's say
that the patient chooses not to die but instead takes the medicines his
doctor has prescribed for him. In doing so the patient is choosing for
himself. He's making his own decisions; he could see other doctors to see
if his illness had not been mistakenly presented. Is it not for the
individual to decide whether she or he wants to live or die? John Stuart
Mill, On Liberty, expresses his view on individual rights:
"In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of
right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual
is sovereign." (629)
Those opposing euthanasia have also argued that practicing euthanasia
prevents the development of new cures and rules out unpracticed methods in
saving a life. Gay-Williams says:
"Also, there is always the possibility that an experimental procedure
or a hitherto untried technique will pull us through. We should at least
keep this option open, but euthanasia closes it off." "They might decide
that the patient would simply be 'better off dead' and take the steps
necessary to make that come about. This attitude would then carry over to
their dealings with patients less seriously ill. The result would be an
overall decline in quality of medical care." (419)
Euthanasia does not have to prevent medical researchers from inventing new
cures or trying new methods in saving a life. Having new cures that are
successful will reduce the number of patients wanting to die. Recent news
says medical researchers have now reported on new methods of treating and
curing cancer patients. News such as this would let those who think they
"are better off dead" have confidence and hope for a life to live.
The common argument in support of euthanasia is one that is called
"The argument of mercy." Patients sometimes suffer pain that can hardly be
comprehended by those who have not experienced it. The suffering would be
so terrible that people wouldn't want to read or think about; and recoil in
horror from its description. The argument for mercy simply states:
Euthanasia is morally justified because it ends suffering. Terminally ill
patients are people who will never attain a personal existence, never
experience life as a net value, and/or never achieve a minimal level of
independence. The moral issue regarding euthanasia is not affected by
whether more could have been done for a patient; but whether euthanasia is
allowable if it is the only alternative to torment. Euthanasia does not
refer to Nazi-like elimination of the sick, old, or unproductive;
traditionally euthanasia means the search for a good death, an easier death
for one who is dying, a death released in some measure from intractable
suffering. If a person prefers and even begs for death as an alternative
to linger on in torment, only to die, then surely it is not immoral to help
this person die sooner. John M. Freeman, "To Treat or Not to Treat,"
expresses the dilemma as follows:
"If we elect not to listen to a person's wish on dying, what becomes
of him? Is he to be fed and watered while the physician waits for him to
develop Mennonites? Is he to be sedated and fed inadequately so that he
dies slowly of starvation without making too much noise?" (150)
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is one of the
oldest and most common moral proverbs, which applies to everyone alike.
When people try to decide whether certain actions are morally correct, they
must ask whether they would be willing for everyone to follow that rule, in
similar circumstances. The application of this to the question of
euthanasia is fairly obvious. Each of us is going to die someday, although
people don't know how or when, and we will probably have little choice in
the matter. But suppose you were given two choices: to die quietly and
painlessly or hope to live and suffer? A chance to survive a disease so
painful that you could only moan for those few days before death; with
family members standing helplessly by. What would your ideal choice be? I
know I would choose the quick and painless death. Why is euthanasia
considered morally wrong by some people? The principle of self-
determination promotes the ideas of self-governance, freedom of choice,
and personal responsibility for individual decisions and behaviors. John
Stuart Mill, On Liberty, says:
"But the strongest of all the arguments against the interference of
the public with purely personal conduct is that, when it does interfere,
the odds are that it interferes wrongly and in the wrong place.."
(635)
Self determination protects privacy and the rights of a person to determine
his or her own life or property without specifying what choice or action
should be embraced.
What if Jack were your brother, your husband, or your son; would you
let him suffer or die painlessly? The doctors planed to remove the tumor,
but they knew eventually "nature will take its course." Society does not
have the right to tell an individual how to control his own life. If an
individual chooses to die, then by all mean he has that right; the right is
paramount. Euthanasia is morally correct, although this method of
relieving pain has been the topic of great moral debates. May we be vested
in the wisdom, patience, and courage to perceive the limitations of our
particular moral visions and derived norm. Robert Louis Stevenson, Crabbed
Age and Youth, says "Old and young, we are all on our last cruise."
Partner sites: Pitbull history, Study Spanish in Ecuador, and Free Essays and Term Papers