Is Euthanasia Morally Permissible free essay sample

Is euthanasia morally permissible? Euthanasia has been hotly debated among the general public in society for many years and it has not reached the mutual agreement in many countries yet. However, the true value of life could not be replaced by anything. If people have any wrong decision on euthanasia, it would be an irretrievable regret. I am going to analyze euthanasia with Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, Liberalism, Confucianism and religious values. Then, I will draw a conclusion to see if euthanasia is morally permissible or not. Have you heard about the story of Pun Chai (Tang Siu-pun)? In 2001, he had sent a letter to the Hong Kong Chief Executive and the legislators to plea to be allowed to die, thus this issue sparked a debate on euthanasia. And Now, Pun Chai changed his mind and said he wants to live, but he still believes that the choice to live or die is a human right. We will write a custom essay sample on Is Euthanasia Morally Permissible or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Some of the patients plea to euthanasia, it is because they hope to get out of the pain from illness and treatment only. Just like what Pun Chai said in his letter, he wanted to die because he felt that he was lonesome, isolated, helpless and painful, he hoped to run away from these feelings. Death is not his desire but an escape from the reality. When there is another choice that can help him get rid of his loneliness; when his voice is heard and his feeling is cared, he is pleased with his life although he is still suffering from the same situation of illness. Therefore, the appeal to death is not actually the patients’ request by heart; this is just an expression of their emotions at that sorrow moment. Since these patients are undergoing a long therapy of treatment, there are fluctuations in their emotions. Under the influence of medicine, they may make a frustrated decision of euthanasia, which it is not appropriate to be considered seriously. The theory of Utilitarianism, as described by one of the most influential contributors Jeremy Bentham, was the greatest happiness or greatest felicity principle†. Some people said that euthanasia can bring happiness to the patients, and to let patients get out of pain. However, can anyone be certain that death is bringing the greatest happiness to them? Is death representing a kind of happiness to which the popular is looking forward? Will they still be happy to die if there is another way to relieve their pain and desperation? Certainly not. I think they will be much happier if they are being listened to and cared of. Pun Chai is exactly a good example. To be respected and looked after considerately; physical and psychological needs fulfilled, these bring them the greatest happiness, not the euthanasia. Bentham also emphasized that the utility action of the person must achieve the greatest pleasure for the greatest number, that is, it can benefit the most people. Some patients believe that euthanasia brings a large amount of happiness to them and their family. Are their families and friends happy to hear their death? Will their death bring any pleasure to the society? I don’t think so. On the other hand, if they still survive, they may bring some happiness to the society. Look at the example of Professor Stephen William Hawking, a famous theoretical physicist and cosmologist. He got amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a disease which would cost him almost all neuromuscular control. Although Hawking has this â€Å"incurable† disease, he never gives up his life. He uses his knowledge and excellent achievement in Physics and Cosmology to contribute to the society and almost the whole world is benefited. In Hong Kong, Pun Chai is another model. Now, he is a volunteer to help other disabled people like him. Also, he had complained to the government about neglecting the need of disabled people. And it is successful to strive for the welfare and additional allowance to the disabled people. This shows clearly that their survival can bring greater pleasure for the greater number than their death. Some people may say that we have the right to survive, so we also have the right to die. They think this is the liberty they should have. A famous philosopher in Liberalism John Stuart Mill argued in his influential essay â€Å"On Liberty† that since the condition of liberty is the power of the individual to make choices, any choice that one might make that would deprive one of the ability to make further choices should be prevented. Thus, for Mill, selling oneself into slavery or killing oneself should be prevented in order to avoid precluding the ability to make further choices. In Kantian Ethics, Kant believed that if something is right, it is right in all situations. Likewise, if something is wrong, it is wrong in all situations. Faced the issue of euthanasia, a Kantian would consider it as an act of murder. So, killing people is always wrong, this contradicts Kantian Ethics. Based on the idea of Confucianism, â€Å"Our bodies are subject to parents, we dare not harm it, it is a beginning of filial piety. †( ). Our bodies are born by our parents, and thus our bodies are not only belonged to ourselves but also our parents; if we hurt ourselves, it is totally against the principle of Hsiao. Loving our parents is the starting point before we extend to love other people. That is the most important virtue of Confucianism because it is the first virtue that we would develop. Let us look at euthanasia in a religious view. In Christianity and Catholicism, everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of. Euthanasia which is a kind of suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Euthanasia is contrary to love for the living God. It is seriously contrary to justice, hope, and charity. It is forbidden by the sixth commandment mentioned in the Holy Bible, â€Å"Thou shalt not kill†. It also violated the fifth commandment â€Å"Honor thy father and thy mother† since euthanasia is a grief to the parents. In Buddhism, one of the Five Precepts is â€Å"Do not kill†. One must not deliberately kill any living creatures, either by committing the act oneself, instructing others to kill, or approving of or participating in act of killing. It is a respect to others lives. In observing this precept, one must try to protect life whenever possible. Euthanasia is a destruction of life and should be refrained. In Hinduism, murdering ones own body is considered equally sinful as murdering another. Islam views suicide strictly as sinful and detrimental to ones spiritual journey; any person who dies by suicide and shows no regret for his wrongdoing will spend an eternity in hell, re-enacting the act by which he took his own life. Judaism views suicide as one of the most serious of sins. Suicide has always been forbidden by Jewish law. Hence, we can see that euthanasia which is a kind of suicide is prohibited in almost every religion. Besides, some interviews showed that those would-be suicides when saved and comforted by their family or friends would not attempt suicide again. Moreover, they started new lives and found the lives more meaningful. Some of them even volunteer to persuade others to treasure the lives. That means, those people are not really hope to die, they want to get the concerns and love from their family and friends only. Comparing with those people who plan for euthanasia, they have the same purpose; they want the concerns from others, too. They just want to reduce the bad feeling of sickness instead of death. According to Dr. Edwin Shneidman in his book â€Å"The Suicidal Mind† published in 1996, he stated that the purpose of suicide is to seek a solution, to illustrate the pain at the core of suicide, and to isolate the common stressor in suicide: frustrated psychological needs. He also said that suicide is an exclusively human response to extreme psychological pain, a lonely and desperate solution for the sufferer who can no longer see any alternatives. Therefore, what people really need and want is not death but a solution to their problems. And we should try to provide an alternative to them other than put them to death. Listed by Professor Robert F. Port of Indiana University in his study â€Å"Possible Human Instincts†, humans probably have instincts to sustenance, sex, defense, sociality, know/learn and talk. In short, these are instincts to survive than die. Humans who wanted to die may be in an abnormal mental state, such as influenced by depression or anxiety. Since this action is irrational and violating the instincts of human, accepting their decision of euthanasia is absurd. In Maslows Hierarchy, the first and second basic human needs are physiological and safety needs, those are basic needs to survive. The other three are belonging, self-esteem and self-actualization needs. Obviously, since these three needs are not fulfilled, patients lose the intention to live. So, even if they asked for euthanasia, what we should do is to perceive and help them to meet the needs on which they currently focused; then they will thank us for assistance in meeting their present needs rather than blaming us not helping them to die. On the other hand, the role of doctor is to heal not to kill. â€Å"The Oath of Hippocrates†, declares that â€Å"I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan†. The ability of physicians is to prescribe the best for the patient, not to harm them. In the â€Å"The Oath of Hippocrates†, it never sanctioned euthanasia which violated the belief, value and the practice of doctor. Moreover, how can we define an â€Å"incurable† disease? One disease is â€Å"incurable† today, but it may become curable tomorrow. No one can foresee or predict what will happen in the future. New medications and therapies are innovated everyday. Smallpox is once a mortal disease and it is now completely eliminated. Leprosy is incurable in the past and now the patient can recover completely after a 12-month treatment. Hence, if a patient knows that there is a way to cure their disease, will they still plea to euthanasia?