Introduction
Euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is increasingly being practiced in many states of America. In these states, such as California, physicians are allowed to prescribe lethal medication to terminally ill patients.While it is true that everyone has a right to life under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act, euthanasia aims at putting some form of limit to this right. The starting point for moral controversy with physician assisted suicide, as evidenced in the assigned reading, revolves around voluntary consent and when and how a person’s wish may prevail in euthanasia matter. While personal autonomy remains critical in decision-making, the problem is that in most cases of euthanasia, doctors and family members assume that patients are helpless and lack the mental capacity to make informed decisions. As a matter of fact, those who support active euthanasia also worry about whether these practices will be open to abuse.Therefore, every individual should have the ultimate right to make end-of-life decisions without any external influence and their choices should be respected no matter the consequences.
Gray Williams’ Arguments
Gray Williams gave a detailed account of his views and arguments on the issue of euthanasia in the chapter, The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia. The author started off by observing that many people tend to support euthanasia because it is a way of expressing their sense of compassion and sympathy to others. They often claim that if a loved one is better off death, then it is morally right to allow them die. Williams notes that even though their sentiments of compassion are justified, euthanasia should not be the only alternative option. He defined euthanasia in terms of an intention to kill another person through lethal medication or stopping life support. Guided by this definition, the author gave three strong arguments against both active and passive euthanasia.
The first argument against euthanasia is derived from nature where William observes that the human body was created to survive. The body has embedded survival instinct such as the white blood cells which helps a lot in healing wounds. Similarly, it is capable of producing antibodies to fight against any form of infection. William, therefore, maintains that euthanasia goes against this very natural instinct and, in the process, makes less than humans. His second argument against euthanasia revolves around the issue of self-interest. According to the author, people may believe that they are dealing with a complicated condition but in reality it might be a case of mistaken diagnosis. Such individual may rush to euthanasia without giving a chance to new effective medical treatments as well as miracle recoveries. Some people choose euthanasia too soon, thus weakening the ability of the body to fight illness. The final argument put forth by Williams originates from practical effects. The authors maintain that euthanasia goes against doctors and nurses commitment to provide quality and safe care to patients.
James Rachels’ Arguments
Rachels’ aim was to show that the AMA’s doctrine which held that passive euthanasia is morally permissible while active euthanasia in morally impermissible is false. The author’s overarching point is that there is a significant moral difference in the two forms of euthanasia, active and passive. The same applies to the issue of killing and letting die. Rachels provides three arguments to substantiate their stand on euthanasia. Firstly, the author argues that the conventional thinking of those involved in decision making on life and death is based on irrelevant grounds – differentiating between killing and letting die has no moral importance. Rachels uses an experiment involving a terminally ill patient suffering from throat cancer to support his argument. He underscores the immense pain that this patient is going through. The author emphasizes that both actions (active or passive) end with the patient dying. He maintains that once the decision is made not to prolong his agony, active euthanasia become preferable compared to passive. According to him, active euthanasia is more humane compared to passive euthanasia.
To support his second argument, Rachels relies on a thought-out experiment involving an infant with Down’s syndrome. It is clear that the infant can live a normal life once the life-threatening intestinal blockage is removed. In such a situation, the viable option for parents and the doctor is to allow the infant die instead of subjecting it to immense pain. Rachels’ argument in this case is that the infant’s Down syndrome should be only thing taken into consideration but not the symptoms causing the pain. On the argument of killing and letting die, the author uses the experiment of two identical scenarios that differ in actions. In these two cases, Rachels aim was to explain the cause and effect of each action and how people interpret situations differently.
Reflective Analysis
Although the two authors gave convincing arguments to support their stand, Williams’ arguments are more persuasive. On his part, Rachels’ main argument was that active euthanasia is the best option since it relieves pain and suffering quickly. However, the author failed to consider the consequences that comes with allowing euthanasia, especially to individuals and healthcare industry. William managed to address some of these consequences in one of his arguments. He noted that having euthanasia as a quick alternative option causes a gradual decline in the quality of patient care and associated services. William’s claim is more convincing because it reinforces the need for healthcare professionals to use their resources and technological advancements to find cure to various diseases and conditions. In essence, Williams strives to address the moral controversy of the issue in which the healthcare providers and family members assume that the patient is incapable of making an informed decision. By deciding on behalf of the patient, they end up taking away one’s autonomy of deciding whether to get treatment or not.
Williams’ argument that euthanasia takes away the chances of recovery is also quite convincing. As a matter of fact, there are thousands of cases in which patients recovered from their conditions miraculously. Similarly, there are plenty of testimonies showing how patients recovered even after being given a few weeks, months or years to live. Rachels’ argument failed to consider all the factors raised by Williams. It is also true that the field of medicine is in a continuous state of evolution, which explains why errors tend to occur. However, with new forms treatment being discovered and, combined with technological advancement in the healthcare industry, it is safe to agree with Williams assertions that there is hope for patients to recover from their illness. The main goal of healthcare is to provide high quality and safe patient care.
Conclusion
While it is true that everyone has a right to life under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act, euthanasia aims at putting some form of limit to this right. The starting point of moral controversy, as evidenced above revolves around voluntary consent and when and how a person’s wish may prevail in euthanasia matter. From a personal point of view, I believe that no one has the authority to end the life of another regardless of the circumstances. In fact, the Bible, in Exodus 20:13, forbids against killing “you shall not kill”. While many people cite pain and suffering as reasons for euthanasia, I believe suffering is part of life because we live in a broken world.