EUTHANASIA: What the Ethicists say about Mercy killing

Gregory works in a private hospital as a medical doctor. His license is just 6 months old – which implies that he is new in the profession. So far, he has not lost any of his patients, even those with very critical cases. However, a new patient was brought to his care and that marked the beginning of his dilemma.

The patient, a 57year-old woman, suffered from Leukaemia – cancer of the blood. The cancer was in the last stage and was automatically terminal. Hence, she could only be kept alive for time being but not completely cured. As known, terminal illnesses also come with daily episodes of pains, in other words, the woman was constantly feeling pain in some parts of her body, she was fatigued, constantly experienced fever, lost so much hair, and weight, and was shorth of breath - everything that could picture the daily pains she was in. Mrs Brown’s family visited sometime and every one of them left with so much tears in their eyes. Who could blame them? They got to see their beloved in chronic pain. It was too hard enough to learn that a relative is suffering an illness; it is even harder to see them writhing in so much pain, especially one that cannot end.

Mrs Brown had previously begged Gregory to let her die as the pain continued to hit her so hard. He waved it away, owing to the fact that people in pain can say or do anything to be free from the pain. He, however, discussed this with her legal guardian — her husband —  who vehemently disapproved it. Her children also refused; they didn’t want their mother to die yet even though she was going through torments and did not have so much time left. 

He pondered on this issue and these thoughts came up:

●       Mrs Brown was in pain, was it not a humane thing to help a person end their misery?

●       Her family would be unhappy at her death, but she was in pain – how more selfish can they be?

●     The Medical Hippocratic oath states that a doctor should do no harm. Which is the harm: ending a pain or leaving it till the patient dies?

Follow me through.

One of the contentious issues that is discussed in ethics is Euthanasia. Ethics is a major branch of philosophy that examines the rational justification for our moral judgements. It studies what is morally right or wrong, good or bad. Basically, ethics are moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conduct of an activity. Euthanasia is discussed mostly in the realm of medical ethics.

The subject births discussion about compassion and the sanctity of human life. From the illustration above, Gregory is left to ponder on whether he should be compassionate towards Mrs Brown and grant her request or to consider the fact that all lives have values and must not just be taken at will. This topic therefore raises profound questions about the value of life, individual autonomy, and the role of medical professionals in end-of-life decisions. It elicits arguments of an ethical, religious, legal and medical nature.

WHAT DOES EUTHANASIA ENTAIL?

Etymologically, the word ‘Euthanasia’ derives from the Greek words – ‘Eu’ meaning ‘good’ and ‘Thanatos’ which means ‘death’. Thus, the term encapsulates the concept of ‘good death’, in other words, a merciful end of life.

Euthanasia can be defined as the direct or indirect taking of a person’s life for the person’s sake. The idea of euthanasia is that instead of condemning someone to a slow, painful or undignified death, euthanasia would allow the patient or person going through the unending pain to experience a relatively ‘good death’. It basically means an act that brings death in order to shorten the suffering of a seriously ill person – often terminally ill person.

Historically, the idea of euthanasia is traceable to ancient periods of Greece and Rome. In ancient Greece, hemlock (poison) was administered either to terminally ill patients or to serve as death sentence for offenders. For example, Socrates, a Greek philosopher who was convicted of an offence, was sentenced to death by hemlock.

Types of euthanasia includes -Voluntary, Involuntary and Non-voluntary euthanasia. 

• Voluntary euthanasia is the type of euthanasia that is carried out on someone with their consent. In other words, if Mrs Brown asks Gregory to euthanize her and he does so, he carried out the act based on Mrs Brown’s consent.
• Involuntary euthanasia is the direct opposite of Voluntary euthanasia. It is the type of euthanasia that is carried out without the consent of the person it was administered to. For example, if Mrs Brown had not asked to be killed but her family in their way of helping her end her misery, tells the physician to put an end to her life and he does so, it was involuntary, or if Mrs Brown begged to not be euthanized but the physician goes ahead to do so in order to end her pain or relive her family of the costs of her treatment, then it is involuntary since she gave no consent.

Non-voluntary euthanasia on the other hand is the type of euthanasia that is done with no available consent. In the cases of babies who cannot give consent, if euthanasia is conducted on them, it is non-voluntary. For example, if Mrs Brown happens to fall into a vegetative state or is brain-dead (a person is declared medically dead when they are brain-dead), cannot feel anything again, and she gets euthanized, it would be a non-voluntary euthanasia.

There are two ways of administering euthanasia – Actively and Passively.

• Active euthanasia is to directly cause death. For example, injecting a patient with lethal liquids to end his life, is an active way of performing euthanasia.
  
• Passive euthanasia is the indirect way of causing death. For example, withdrawing treatment from an unresponsive patient or simply letting them die by not doing anything to save their life.

  FEW ETHICISTS AND WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT EUTHANASIA

According to the English dictionary, Ethicists are people, especially philosophers, who study ethics. They advocate a particular set of principles governing right and wrong conduct. While some ethicists argue that letting patients die (passive) can sometimes be morally permissible, some argue that active euthanasia is always wrong, some say that both acts are wrong and some say that in some exceptional cases, administering euthanasia is not wrong. One of the ethicists that argues for euthanasia is Thomas More, an English philosopher. In his work ‘Utopia’, he addressed the issue of euthanasia and deemed it legitimate in the case of incurable diseases, but only with the permission of priests and magistrates. Although this came with conditions, it still shows that Thomas More, according to his ideology, did not see it as totally wrong. 

Another ethicist who sides with the idea of euthanasia is Francis Bacon, who was also an English philosopher. His argument in support of euthanasia was that in cases of incurable illnesses, when the patient’s life is prolonged, he and his family continue to go through suffering, hence Euthanasia is permissible.

Some arguments entail the ideology that people should have the freedom of choice which includes the right to control their body and life. For example, in the case of Mrs Brown asking her doctor to end her life, some ethicists say that she has the right to make that decision, after all, it is her body and choice.

Some also argue that in cases where families have spent and exhausted their money in keeping their sick member alive, it is not a bad idea to euthanize the person, especially when there is very little or no hope of them coming back to life or living a normal life back.  For them, it simply helped both the patient and his family.

On the other side, Thomas Aquinas, a philosopher, theologian and catholic priest, was one of the ethicists that argued against the idea of euthanasia. For him, our natural instinct is the struggle for survival, administering euthanasia therefore contradicts our natural instinct of survival.

The catholic church argues vehemently against euthanasia. For them, respect for life is a non-negotiable issue, because it does not belong to man but it a gift from God and therefore must be protected from the moment of conception until natural death. Euthanasia is therefore not an option even in cases of incurable and highly painful illnesses. The catholic church even relates a patient’s suffering to ‘Jesus’ suffering’ and preaches that such patient accepts his suffering as parts of his suffering for God.

Another argument against euthanasia is the ‘Slippery slope’ argument. The proponents of this argument worry that if euthanasia is eventually allowed everywhere legally, a lot of people would misuse the act and administer it as they deem fit. Some who even have bad intentions for the critically ill patient may use euthanasia as a means to carry out suicide. Making euthanasia legal could even discourage researchers from carrying out researches to look for cures for these incurable illnesses. In cases of wrong diagnosis also, a patient, upon receiving an incorrect diagnosis on being terminal ill, may opt for euthanasia when in actuality, he is not.

There are reported rare cases of patients who have been declared dead medically (brain dead), coming back to life, in other words, being lucky. Carrying out euthanasia therefore can cut short a patient’s luck to come back alive.

From the above, Gregory pondered on which is compassion, letting his patient go through pain or aiding her death in order to end her suffering. Compassion is a very compulsory term for physicians, they must display compassion on their patients and try their bests to save their lives. Carrying out euthanasia and giving patients the idea that they can opt for euthanasia according to some ethicists, is against the principle of medical ethics that states that a doctor should do no harm. Therefore, agreeing quickly to Mrs Brown’s pleas can be a way of giving up on her and proving that he cannot possibly find another alternative to help her cope with her pain. Hence, neither letting the patient go through pain nor aiding her quicker death is compassionate, instead, finding ways to help cope with her pain either by providing her with words of comforts and hope or administering drugs that helps relieve pains.

In every seemingly good stance, there are downsides to them also. Euthanasia for some depicts individual autonomy to choose whatever they want, a way out of unending pain and a way of helping an ill person die peacefully; while some see euthanasia as putting an end to something precious – Life, giving room for potential misuse of the act and possible attack on humanity, violation of the divine law and offence against the dignity of a person. In all, embedded in the topic of euthanasia are deep, and long implications which we may not be able to exhaust in a simple and short article. From the foregoing therefore, this article narrowly stands in support of the arguments against euthanasia. Life has the ultimate value; it is an end in itself and not a means to an end. If there is a constant altercation in the value of life, in no time, it would become meaningless. Also, life is full of shortcomings and hardships, when there is a bargain on the value of life such that people can decide to stay alive or not, the essence of life becomes lost, there is loss of faith, hope and will. In short, everyone who encounters illnesses would always want to opt for the easy way out of their problems – death.