I turned in the rough draft last week, and should be getting it back sometime this week, but I thought I'd let you contrary c'unts have the first crack at feedback. It also gives you a perfectly good chance to argue about something that isn't Iraq/Iran related.
I want you all to note that, although I argue against euthanasia in my essay, I in no way agree with my arguments. However, I thought it would be an experience to argue against my own beliefs, hence my position in the paper. If anybody is interested in the sources, let me know and I'll post those as well.
And now, without further delay, have at it!
Quote:
In the worlds of philosophy and medical ethics, there are a plethora of arguments pertaining to the practice of euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide. Most of these arguments agree that euthanasia, both active and passive, is morally permissible under very extreme circumstances, and proceed to describe situations in which the merciful action clearly seems to be the death of the patient as opposed to further pain and suffering. Throughout all of these arguments, however, there are none that present a clear, universal set of guidelines for judging the severity of the patient’s conditions, the morally relative value of life, or the other circumstantial factors which may lead a patient to seek euthanasia. In this essay, I will attempt to look beyond these relativistic factors. I will argue that any person seeking euthanasia to relieve their own pain and suffering is not in a clear state of mind, and therefore unable to make a coherent, rational decision regarding their current state of life, and the conditions of their death. This essay will focus on the specific case of voluntary euthanasia, so all other cases will be ignored for the sake of argument.
Judith Boss defines voluntary euthanasia as a situation in which “a competent, rational person requests or gives informed consent about a particular action or withholding of treatment that will lead to his or her death†(Boss 181). Analyzing this statement, the most important aspect is that the person must be both competent and rational. This would undoubtedly exclude persons who are mentally retarded, hallucinating, under the effects of certain debilitating drugs, or otherwise incapable of competent, rational decision making. It would also exclude those that suffer from specific diseases that impair cognitive functions. The only ones left to fall under this definition are mentally healthy, emotionally mature individuals who can accurately assess their own situation; those that are in a clear state of mind.
In many of the arguments that lend justification to selected euthanasia, the central point is seems to be the pain and suffering experienced by the patient. According to these arguments, euthanasia is morally right if the level of pain is so great that it decreases the patient’s quality of life to the point that it is no longer desirable to live. According to Margaret Pabst Battin, “if the patient’s condition is so tragic that continuing life brings only pain, and there is no other way to relieve the pain than by death, then the more merciful act… is one that brings the pain—and the patient’s life—to an end now…†(Battin 201). While this statement seems to make sense, it does not take into account the wishes of the patient. Clearly, if this was done against the patient’s will, it is homicide.
If such a “mercy killing†is performed in accordance with a patient’s request, the important question then becomes the patient’s state of mind. Without a doubt, any person diagnosed with or experiencing a terminal condition will be rife with anxiety, depression, and stress, but more important is the presence of pain. Persons experiencing chronic pain do not have a clear state of mind, and therefore are not capable of rational decision making. In a study done by the International Association for the Study of Pain, “evidence indicates that chronic pain is associated with a specific cognitive deficit, which may impact everyday behavior especially in risky, emotionally laden, situations†(MIAS). Other research supports this claim and “…suggests that pain-related negative emotions and stress potentially impact cognitive functioning…†(Medline).
The decision to end one’s own life is clearly stressful and emotional, and this research leads one to believe that those experiencing chronic pain are not in a clear state of mind, and therefore incapable of competent, rational decision making. It follows from this that those seeking euthanasia to end their pain and suffering cannot fall under the category of voluntary. Instead, it might be more appropriate to label these cases of euthanasia as involuntary since the patient is being influenced by pain, stress, and depression.
The next point to address is that of patients who are not in pain that seek euthanasia. This is usually done by patients suffering from extreme depression and despair. Regardless of causes, this is nothing more than a veiled cry for help. Any person in a clear state of mind who is absent of pain and suffering is more than able to take their own life without the aid of physicians. Therefore, these people are not expressing a desire to die, but rather a deep state of depression and emotional distress, which is a treatable illness. “Rather than seeking to end their lives, the request to die is really an expression of… despair and, as such, is a cry for help†(Boss 192).
If the above arguments are accepted, it becomes very clear that there is no possible way to morally justify voluntary euthanasia. Any patient voluntarily requesting euthanasia is either not in a clear state of mind due to pain, and therefore incapable of competent, rational decision making, or is instead communicating a hidden cry for help.
One of the most obvious objections to this argument arises from previous legal instruction to end one’s life under certain conditions, whether by means of active or passive euthanasia. These are most commonly called DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders or advanced directives. The major flaw with these instructions is the time in which they are issued. If a person is to accurately weigh the moral values associated with their own death and quality of life, they must take into account, and fully understand, all factors involved. Unfortunately, there is no way to predict the quality of life experienced during terminal illness or chronic pain beforehand. The person may find it possible to effectively adjust to conditions that they did not foresee, or fully comprehend, before the onset of the illness. This creates a conundrum since previous judgments cannot be trusted under current conditions, nor can one trust the decision making ability of a person who is not in a clear state of mind.
The burden then falls upon the physician and the patient’s family to make the decision. However, as is the case with many other moral debates, the value of one’s life can only be accurately prioritized by the individual in question. Only they can truly know what they are experiencing, and judge whether their continued existence is more important than the permanent relief of their pain. However, as with the above case, these persons do not have a clear state of mind while experiencing pain, and therefore are not qualified to make such a decision.
Clearly, the only morally right thing to do in these situations is to make the patient as comfortable as possible. With the enormous advances in medical technology, as well as the growth of the hospice movement, pain can be effectively regimented without rendering the patient completely lifeless. With modern medicine, persons experiencing chronic pain can still live happy, fulfilling lives, even if they are limited in some way due to pain management. This all but eliminates the need to justify any form of euthanasia, which is something that practically everybody can agree on.
Judith Boss defines voluntary euthanasia as a situation in which “a competent, rational person requests or gives informed consent about a particular action or withholding of treatment that will lead to his or her death†(Boss 181). Analyzing this statement, the most important aspect is that the person must be both competent and rational. This would undoubtedly exclude persons who are mentally retarded, hallucinating, under the effects of certain debilitating drugs, or otherwise incapable of competent, rational decision making. It would also exclude those that suffer from specific diseases that impair cognitive functions. The only ones left to fall under this definition are mentally healthy, emotionally mature individuals who can accurately assess their own situation; those that are in a clear state of mind.
In many of the arguments that lend justification to selected euthanasia, the central point is seems to be the pain and suffering experienced by the patient. According to these arguments, euthanasia is morally right if the level of pain is so great that it decreases the patient’s quality of life to the point that it is no longer desirable to live. According to Margaret Pabst Battin, “if the patient’s condition is so tragic that continuing life brings only pain, and there is no other way to relieve the pain than by death, then the more merciful act… is one that brings the pain—and the patient’s life—to an end now…†(Battin 201). While this statement seems to make sense, it does not take into account the wishes of the patient. Clearly, if this was done against the patient’s will, it is homicide.
If such a “mercy killing†is performed in accordance with a patient’s request, the important question then becomes the patient’s state of mind. Without a doubt, any person diagnosed with or experiencing a terminal condition will be rife with anxiety, depression, and stress, but more important is the presence of pain. Persons experiencing chronic pain do not have a clear state of mind, and therefore are not capable of rational decision making. In a study done by the International Association for the Study of Pain, “evidence indicates that chronic pain is associated with a specific cognitive deficit, which may impact everyday behavior especially in risky, emotionally laden, situations†(MIAS). Other research supports this claim and “…suggests that pain-related negative emotions and stress potentially impact cognitive functioning…†(Medline).
The decision to end one’s own life is clearly stressful and emotional, and this research leads one to believe that those experiencing chronic pain are not in a clear state of mind, and therefore incapable of competent, rational decision making. It follows from this that those seeking euthanasia to end their pain and suffering cannot fall under the category of voluntary. Instead, it might be more appropriate to label these cases of euthanasia as involuntary since the patient is being influenced by pain, stress, and depression.
The next point to address is that of patients who are not in pain that seek euthanasia. This is usually done by patients suffering from extreme depression and despair. Regardless of causes, this is nothing more than a veiled cry for help. Any person in a clear state of mind who is absent of pain and suffering is more than able to take their own life without the aid of physicians. Therefore, these people are not expressing a desire to die, but rather a deep state of depression and emotional distress, which is a treatable illness. “Rather than seeking to end their lives, the request to die is really an expression of… despair and, as such, is a cry for help†(Boss 192).
If the above arguments are accepted, it becomes very clear that there is no possible way to morally justify voluntary euthanasia. Any patient voluntarily requesting euthanasia is either not in a clear state of mind due to pain, and therefore incapable of competent, rational decision making, or is instead communicating a hidden cry for help.
One of the most obvious objections to this argument arises from previous legal instruction to end one’s life under certain conditions, whether by means of active or passive euthanasia. These are most commonly called DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders or advanced directives. The major flaw with these instructions is the time in which they are issued. If a person is to accurately weigh the moral values associated with their own death and quality of life, they must take into account, and fully understand, all factors involved. Unfortunately, there is no way to predict the quality of life experienced during terminal illness or chronic pain beforehand. The person may find it possible to effectively adjust to conditions that they did not foresee, or fully comprehend, before the onset of the illness. This creates a conundrum since previous judgments cannot be trusted under current conditions, nor can one trust the decision making ability of a person who is not in a clear state of mind.
The burden then falls upon the physician and the patient’s family to make the decision. However, as is the case with many other moral debates, the value of one’s life can only be accurately prioritized by the individual in question. Only they can truly know what they are experiencing, and judge whether their continued existence is more important than the permanent relief of their pain. However, as with the above case, these persons do not have a clear state of mind while experiencing pain, and therefore are not qualified to make such a decision.
Clearly, the only morally right thing to do in these situations is to make the patient as comfortable as possible. With the enormous advances in medical technology, as well as the growth of the hospice movement, pain can be effectively regimented without rendering the patient completely lifeless. With modern medicine, persons experiencing chronic pain can still live happy, fulfilling lives, even if they are limited in some way due to pain management. This all but eliminates the need to justify any form of euthanasia, which is something that practically everybody can agree on.
