The Socratic Inquiry Newsletter Vol 3 Issue 7 (2021)

Recommendations

Info

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 isinvolved. Even in the passive form, there is an intentional act of withdrawing the life supportsystem. 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. Thesole purpose of which is to save lives. Letting a person die when one can instead choose to worktowards 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 whereconsent is given. This is also known as Voluntary Euthanasia. In this form of euthanasia, thepatient can give verbal or written consent to be euthanized. Any form of consent like a will thatwas written in advance can also be considered. In contrast to this, Involuntary Euthanasia iswhen the patient is euthanized without being consented to. There is a third category that islegalized in many countries in its passive form. When a patient is in a ‘vegetative’ state such as incomatose or a child. Such cases are classified as Non-Voluntary Euthanasia. We, therefore, havethree 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. Noawas anorexic and was being treated for depression and PTSD. The girl asked the court toprovide 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. Ifconsent could justify euthanasia, then Noa’s suicide will pose no contradiction to the moral basisof 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 inthe best interest of the patient to not continue to suffer and end life. Firstly, I want to ask that onwhat basis is the judgment of best interest made by a doctor. One of the very common waysPage No. 06
V O L . 3 I S S U E 7 2 0 2 1 ( J U N 7 - J U L 4 )of basing this judgment is to have a paternal outlook towards the patient. The doctoracts as a parental figure i.e., dominant figure in deciding what’s best for the patient evenif he cannot objectively say whether the act of euthanasia will be better for the patient ornot due to advancements in technology. This point will be discussed in detail later. Apatient’s autonomy is ignored or given less importance within this outlook. Autonomyinvolves choice “rather than having one imposed on by others or allowing circumstancesto dictate” (Young, 2009).Those who are paralyzed from below the neck can easily give verbal consent too. Butthis simple verbal expression cannot make something that is the wrong turn into rightonly because the person is consenting. A patient could be consenting out of variousreasons such as physical and financial dependence on the family, demotivated by thesituation, feeling like a burden, etc. All these factors can apply to people with depressionor other mental illnesses too. However, most people will feel squeamish about applyingthe same conclusion here. It is wrong, therefore, to think that it is morally acceptable if aperson consents to assisted suicide. It must be taken into account that we live in asociety. A society that is governed by a single or a group or representatives. The citizensare not free in an absolute sense and cannot consent to anything they want. Consent,therefore, cannot be an appropriate justification.Secondly, euthanasia objectifies human life. Killing someone or letting someone diedowngrades a person to the level of a mere object that can be thrown away. It placesthe value of human life on utility or usefulness. If a person is no longer useful to societyor productive then, performing euthanasia is supposed to be morally acceptable. Theterm ‘vegetable’ itself strips off the dignity of a person and takes away all that makes it aperson. Their existence is not valued anymore for itself but as a means. Manyphilosophers from centuries have argued against the immorality of treating people asmere means. One among them states “act that you use humanity, in your own person aswell as in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as ameans” (Kant & Gregor, 2012).Page No. 07
Page 1: THE SOCRATIC INQUIRYThe Official Ne
Page 4 and 5: V O L . 3 I S S U E 7 2 0 2 1 ( J U

The Socratic Inquiry Newsletter Vol 3 Issue 7 (2021)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?