BY: BSN-II AQUINO CO UMILIN

    

Means easy death From the Greek word eu-easy and thanatos-death More strictly, it means painless, peaceful death It is the deliberate putting to death, in an easy, painless way, of an individual suffering from an incurable and agonizing disease.  Popularly known as mercy killing  Some call it the art or practice of painlessly putting to death a person suffering from a marked deformity or from an unbearable and distressing disease.

- it may be either active (positive) euthanasia, which in a terminally ill patient will deliberately, directly terminate his life by employing painless methods-it is an act of commission insofar as it is voluntary and deliberate - or passive (negative) euthanasia, which one allows oneself to die without taking any medicine or by refusing medical treatment.-it is an act of omission insofar as one simply refuses to take anything to sustain life.

 Active and voluntary euthanasia- is one in which either a physician, spouse, or a friend of the patient will terminate the life upon his request.  Passive and Voluntary euthanasia- one in which a terminally ill patient is simply allowed to die by the physician, spouse or an immediate relative, upon the patients request.  Active and nonvoluntary euthanasia- occurs when it is the physician, spouse or relative, who decides that the life of the terminally ill patient should be terminated.  Passive and nonvoluntary euthanasia- one in which a terminally ill patient is simply allowed to die, as requested by the immediate family members.

The Problem of Human Dignity

 The moral issue of euthanasia revolves around the preservation of human dignity in death even to the individuals last breath.  It states that euthanasia aims to preserve human dignity until death, not only does one have a duty to preserve life, but has also the duty to die with dignity.  To die with dignity means that one should be able to make the decision to die when dying would be better than to go on living with an incurable and distressing sickness.

 The negative side, declares that euthanasia erodes human dignity.  This is the crossroads of a moral issue: 1) Whereas the positive side insists that mercy killing preserves human dignity 2) The negative side claims the opposite since this acts hastens the death of an individual.

 T. Gary Williams 1. Considers euthanasia to be morally wrong, firstly because it is an intentional killing and opposes the natural moral law, or the natural inclination to preserve life. 2. Secondly, euthanasia may be performed for purposes of self-interest or other consequences.  A mistaken diagnosis is always possible, but one may justify such mistakes through mercy killing once it is considered a legitimate practice.

Recovery from a serious illness requires that we fight for our life, so the very possibility of euthanasia may keep us from doing just that (Williams calls this the argument from self-interest). 3. Thirdly, doctors and other health care professionals may be tempted not to do their best to save the patient; they may resort to euthanasia as an easy way out and simply disregard any other alternatives.

 James Rachel, opts for euthanasia, believing it to be humane insofar as it allows suffering to be brought to a speedy end. In his view, whether killing of any kind is right or wrong depends on the motives and circumstances under which it takes place. If the intentions and situations are of a certain kind, then active euthanasia can be deemed morally right. Similarly, if you simply allow a patient to die when you have some motive in mind, your act is omission (passive euthanasia) becomes morally reprehensible. For Rachel's, both cases (active and passive euthanasia) your evil intentions have rendered your decisions or actions morally wrong.

 Philippa Foot endorses both active and passive euthanasia, in which patient explicitly gives consent. In her view, everyone has the right to life; hence it is what a person wants that counts. It is only when a person has decided after battling some incurable disease, that life is no longer worth living that both active and passive voluntary euthanasia can be endorsed and regarded as legitimate and justified.

 Richard Brandt applies Rosss notion of prima facie duty not to injure others in his analysis of the issue.  If someone is in an irreversible coma, all types of diagnoses have been made to confirm the hopelessness of the case, the patient is considered to be beyond injury.  In such a situation, if instructions have been left for the patients life to be ended painlessly, it becomes our prima facie obligation to do so (active and voluntary euthanasia).  Not to follow such a wish would be remiss in our prima facie obligation to keep others from further harm or more pain.

Natural law ethics condemns mercy killing. Euthanasia is intrinsically wrong because it implies the direct, deliberate killing of an individual- hence it is murder. Even though the motive is good, the good does not justify the evil means in this case. The principle of stewardship and the inviolability of life may be appealed to in this connection. The principle of double effect may be legitimate under certain circumstances.

There is no moral obligation to continue medical treatment if and when a terminally ill patient becomes hopeless. Even if ones life might be lengthened through extraordinary measures which are already useless anyway, it is legitimate to allow the patient to die as a result of his/her own illness or injury. Kants ethics speaks of the human dignity of an autonomous rational being. As such, we have a bounden duty to preserve life. Furthermore, a terminally ill patient in a vegetative state is no longer an autonomous person with a self-regulating will. Hence, by Kantian principles, our duty to preserve life no longer holds.

Depending upon how one interprets the utilitarian principle of utility, it seems that its formulation about the greatest happiness and benefits for the greatest number of persons may render euthanasia legitimate. The Pragmatic Theory of the good and the truth seems to justify euthanasia in general. It can be argued that when an individual has been in agony for a long time, and it has become unbearable to go on living in misery and pain, the most pragmatic moral decision to make is to put such a useless life to end. In the light of Rosss ethical principles, under certain conditions or circumstances, one may find it a stringent prima facie duty to put a comatose patient to an easy death, depending upon a good motive-e.g. to put an end to the prolonged suffering of the patient.

Rawls concept of justice, argues that no amount of social good or welfare can override the inviolability of the individual, it appears as if euthanasia would be illicit or unacceptable. However, a persons inviolability demands that his dignity be preserved and justice be served if and when his death would be as painless and nonviolent as possible. To let him live and suffer needless pain and agony would be doing him more injustice than justice, more harm than good.

THE END