The Socratic Inquiry Newsletter Vol 3 Issue 7 (2021)

V O L . 3 I S S U E 7 2 0 2 1 ( J U N 7 - J U L 4 )
In this essay, I have taken up the three reasons that are of utmost importance in my view. Firstly,
euthanasia is an act of killing. There is no denying that a deliberate act of inducing lethal drugs is
involved. Even in the passive form, there is an intentional act of withdrawing the life support
system. In the latter form, depriving a person of a basic support system such as oxygen, food,
etc., not only goes against the individual’s right to live but also against the Doctor’s Oath. The
sole purpose of which is to save lives. Letting a person die when one can instead choose to work
towards saving him is immoral. One can also view the right to die from the perspective of or
“right to take life or the right to have one’s life taken” which is a blatant outcry to legalize killing”
(Alcorn, 1994).
The proponents may argue here that individual rights are not contradicted in cases where
consent is given. This is also known as Voluntary Euthanasia. In this form of euthanasia, the
patient can give verbal or written consent to be euthanized. Any form of consent like a will that
was written in advance can also be considered. In contrast to this, Involuntary Euthanasia is
when the patient is euthanized without being consented to. There is a third category that is
legalized in many countries in its passive form. When a patient is in a ‘vegetative’ state such as in
comatose or a child. Such cases are classified as Non-Voluntary Euthanasia. We, therefore, have
three kinds of euthanasia that can be performed either actively or passively. The point, however,
is not to argue against any specific kind of euthanasia but to reject the whole practice itself.
The consent provided by the patient cannot justify the act of getting euthanized. ‘Noa Pothoven’,
a Dutch teenage girl stopped eating and drinking, eventually leading to her death in 2019. Noa
was anorexic and was being treated for depression and PTSD. The girl asked the court to
provide her with support in the form of lethal drugs to commit assisted suicide viz, euthanasia.
However, the refusal led her to take the matter into her own hands and go on a hunger strike.
This case made headlines in the Netherlands where the practice of euthanasia is now legal. If
consent could justify euthanasia, then Noa’s suicide will pose no contradiction to the moral basis
of euthanasia.
The proponents can argue here that the best interests of the patient matter more than consent.
Many times, it can be the case that the patient is a baby or is comatose. In these cases, it is in
the best interest of the patient to not continue to suffer and end life. Firstly, I want to ask that on
what basis is the judgment of best interest made by a doctor. One of the very common ways
Page No. 06