|
The practice of active euthanasia on any dying or disabled
person is an act of criminal homicide and should be outlawed
in Canada. Intentionally ending a person’s life by means of
administering a lethal injection, or otherwise taking
specific steps to end a person’s life invokes several
negative consequences on society and humanity. Because the
human body possesses built-in regulatory mechanisms intended
to increase chances of survival, ending life prematurely
conflicts with this ‘[natural] inclination to continue
living’ (Gay-Williams, 1979), and so active euthanasia is
inherently wrong. Moreover, due to the permanency of the
outcome, active euthanasia ends all future possibilities of
a potential cure or palliation that may help the person
return to a normal, healthy state; thus, it contains within
it the possibility of working against our own best interests
(Gay-Williams, 1979). Finally, permitting active euthanasia
may negatively impact the balance between beneficence and
nonmaleficence to which physicians are expected to maintain
and follow as guiding principles for treating patients.
Active euthanasia is a
non-accidental form of killing performed typically by
physicians, either through the use of euthanizing drugs, or
by the use of other means to ensure the person does not
revive. The arguments presented herein will focus on two
different types of euthanasia, namely,
voluntary and
involuntary active
euthanasia. Voluntary active euthanasia involves taking
specific actions to euthanize a person provided that he/she
consents fully and consistently for medical reasons. On the
contrary, involuntary active euthanasia involves
deliberately ending a life without the permission of the
person whose life is being terminated. For instance, the
person whose life is ended may be terminally ill or mentally
incompetent to make such a decision. Furthermore, it is also
important to clarify the distinction between
non-accidental and
accidental
killing. Non-accidental killing does not involve deaths
caused by mistakenly administering the wrong drug to a
person, because this form of killing was not ‘deliberate and
intentional’ (Gay-Williams, 1979). Similarly, if death is
caused by an unforeseen bodily reaction to a drug that is
known to make the person well, this too would not be
considered
non-accidental
killing because the goal was to treat the individual
(Gay-Williams, 1979). Therefore, non-accidental killing
entails deliberately and intentionally taking the life of a
person by causing death to occur earlier than it would have
otherwise happened. By this logic, active euthanasia is
synonymous to murder.
Finally, both
beneficence and nonmaleficence are ethical principles of medical practice that
doctors are expected to follow. The principle of
nonmaleficence states that physicians ‘should do everything
possible to avoid harming [patients] or others in their
efforts to serve’ (Cournoyer, 2008, p.118). Its meaning is
derived from the Latin phrase,
Primum non nocere,
which translates, ‘First, do no harm.’ Similarly, the
principle of beneficence states that physicians are ‘morally
obligated to contribute to the welfare of their patients’
(Yamada et al.,
2009). Thus, beneficence is complementary to nonmaleficence
and requires acting in the best interest of the patient.
Survival is an inherent aspect of human nature and
an objective of all life forms on earth. Our
inclination to continue living is part of our
genetic make-up, and thus it is something we are
naturally born with and eventually die with. To
exemplify how every human being is naturally
inclined to continue living, parallels will be drawn
to some major regulatory mechanisms that balance the
demands of circumstances that challenge our
survival. For instance, at the molecular level, when
certain cells are exposed to temperatures above
their normal range, survival proteins known as
heat shock
proteins are rapidly synthesized to protect the
cells against the effects of heat stress (Lawrence,
2005, p.285). Genes for these proteins are expressed
in nearly all living organisms including bacteria
(Vaux, 2002). At the cellular level, humans are
equipped with an immune system that enables the body
to mount a response to invading pathogens and
foreign objects as a way to protect the host and
ensure survival. In addition, when humans are
exposed to stressful situations, hormones such as
adrenaline are secreted to enable the person to
respond in a fight-or-flight manner. In fact, even
the human anatomy fits the description of a
survivor, that is, we have muscles and bones that
allow us to avoid danger and defend against threats.
Active ‘euthanasia does violence to this natural
goal of survival’ (Gay-Williams, 1979), and
disregards the
Natural law, which maintains that ‘everything in
nature is designed for a purpose.’ Contrary to
nature’s intent of self-preservation, active
euthanasia ‘defeats
these subtle mechanisms in a way that…disease and
injury might not’
(Gay-Williams, 1979). Thus, active euthanasia is
inherently wrong and should not be made legal in
Canada.
As medical technology develops, the availability of
treatments has considerably increased, rendering a
remarkable amount of survivors that live happy and
productive lives. For instance, prior to the 1980’s, there
were no effective means of treating HIV (Borchardt, 2006).
Since HIV targets immune cells, carriers of the virus, at
the time were either destined to continue living a lifestyle
that would increase their chance of developing AIDS, and
succumb as a result, or make radical efforts to overcome
this vulnerability in order to survive. However, due to
modern medical interventions, individuals with HIV now have
the opportunity to combat the virus and live life longer.
Individuals that choose to have their life ended earlier via
euthanasia do not have the opportunity to reconsider their
actions because death is absolute and irrevocable.
Hypothetically, those who chose to be euthanized as a means
to eradicate suffering and social harm caused by HIV, prior
to when the medicine was first developed, would have been a
tragic end to a promising future. Moreover, although
contemporary medicine has a proven record of
accomplishments, a misdiagnosis is always a possibility
(Gay-Williams, 1979). A misdiagnosis of a deadly medical
condition with a limited prognosis could severely disrupt a
person’s psychological wellbeing. In such circumstances, if
Canada were to permit active euthanasia, people would die
needlessly due to their fear of suffering and death
(Gay-Williams, 1979). Also, even the possibility of
spontaneous remission,
which is a rare phenomenon associated with an unexpected
improvement or cure of a medical condition, is guaranteed
not to occur. This demonstrates how active ‘euthanasia
contains within it the possibility that we will work against
our own interest if we practice it or allow it to be
practiced on us’
(Gay-Williams, 1979). Any law that permits individuals to
end their life as a means to eliminate suffering caused by
illness could never be applied universally. The maxim ‘kill
those who are suffering’ is not
universalisable
because if all people were habitual sufferers, the human
race would end, and is therefore a contradiction to the
Natural law.
People who choose to pursue a career in medicine are often
influenced by factors associated with caring for and serving
others. The commitment to saving lives and improving patient
outcomes is a common goal among physicians and holds the
utmost importance to the profession. This ongoing commitment
often entails developing and maintaining an honest and
supportive relationship with patients, which is central to
the practice of medicine and the maintenance of medical
ethics. Contrary to the ethical principle of nonmaleficence,
the practice of active euthanasia directly violates the aim
of avoiding and preventing harm to the patient. In fact, it
influences physicians to disregard their Hippocratic Oath
and devalue the lives of people who are dying or disabled by
promoting their death. Despite how ongoing pain from an
illness may be discomforting and harmful to the body, injury
caused by lethal injection is far more harmful because it
leads to immediate death. A law that permits active
euthanasia conflicts with a physician’s duty to treat people
and, in turn, shifts the balance between beneficence and
nonmaleficence in the physician-patient relationship in
favour of beneficence. For instance, since active euthanasia
violates the principle of nonmaleficence, a patient who
feels that assisted-suicide would contribute to his/her
welfare, places his/her physician in an ethical and moral
dilemma where the doctor is legally obligated to euthanize
the person. Recall that the principle of beneficence
maintains that a physician should act in the best interest
of his/her patient.
Furthermore, legalizing active
euthanasia reinforces the erroneous judgement that some
people are ‘better off dead’. These views are often
propagated by the philosophy of utilitarianism, which
maintains that society should make decisions based on the
‘best overall consequences for everyone concerned.’ Based on
this principle, euthanizing those who, for medical reasons,
no longer want to live would likely benefit society because
they can no longer contribute to the good of society
(Singer, 1993, p.100).This ideology is wrong because it
replaces human intrinsic worth with instrumental value,
where human value is solely centred on one’s usefulness to
society, and violates the medical axiom that ‘care must be
taken for the susceptible individual’ (Jacob, 1999, p.51).
Consequently, permitting active euthanasia may negatively
impact the ethical standards and attitudes healthcare
professionals are to maintain towards saving lives and
avoiding injury.
It is often argued that denying a patient’s request to die,
for medical reasons, and prolonging their life results in
the loss of the person’s dignity. Those who admit to this
error of judgement often do so without thoroughly
contemplating the murderous nature of the crime being
committed by the doctor on behalf of the patient. This idea
fails to acknowledge the loss of dignity physicians are
permanently stigmatized with as a result of aiding to kill a
human being and risking murder charges. As mentioned
earlier, active euthanasia goes against our innate
willingness to survive. Since human life is a subset of
nature, nature too has dignity and respects the laws of
life. If nature intended for continual survival, then the
practice of active euthanasia also results in the loss of
nature’s dignity. Thus, it is only through the acceptance of
death’s inevitability, that the laws of nature are respected
and, in turn, one’s true dignity is fulfilled.
Overall, this paper has shown that the acceptance of active
euthanasia on any dying or disabled person should not be
tolerated due to its negative impact on society and
humanity. The practice of active euthanasia refutes the
laws of nature by
acting against our innate willingness to survive. The
permanency it yields on life’s ends contains within it the
possibility of working against our own best interests, that
is, whether it be to eliminate suffering or social harm.
Finally, the legalization of active euthanasia may
negatively impact the quality of healthcare service, as it
promotes the devaluation of human worth. Since it is
nature’s intent for life to gravitate towards survival,
human dignity can only be preserved if this intention is
fulfilled, and while suffering may elicit the impression
that some people are
better off dead, suffering is part of the human
condition, but active euthanasia is still an act of murder.
References
Borchardt, J.K. (2006).
Focus on New
Antiviral Drugs for AIDS and Smallpox Treatments.
Drug News Perspect,
19(5): 307.
Cournoyer, B.R. (2008). The Social Work Skills Workbook (5th
ed.). California: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Gay-Williams, J. (1979). The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia.
Retrieved March 24, 2010, from:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil164/gay-williams.pdf.
Jacob, J..M. (1999). Doctors & Rules: A Sociology of
Professional Values (2nd ed.). New Jersey:
Transaction Publishers.
Lawrence, E. (2005). Henderson’s Dictionary of Biology (13th
ed.). Essex: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Singer, P. (1993). Practical Ethics (2nd ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yamada, N.K., Kodner, I.J., & Brown, D.E. (2009). When
operating is considered futile: Difficult decisions in the
neonatal intensive care unit.
Surgery, 146: 122-125.
Vaux, D.L. (2002). Apoptosis and toxicology—what relevance?
Toxicology,
181-182. |
|
