Biomedical Ethics: Voluntary Active Euthanasia

Voluntary and Active Euthanasia

In Voluntary Active Euthanasia (http://philpapers.org/rec/BROVAE), Dan Brock discusses the controversy surrounding the issue of physician assisted suicide and how is it possible to support it while opposing voluntary active euthanasia and whether there is a moral difference between both of them.  Furthermore, Brock means to enlighten the argument about physician assisted suicide establishing what he believes are the best arguments for both conflicting sides and underlining the moral issues involved in the conflict. For instance, whether euthanasia is unjustified killing and, if so, whether physicians can be convinced to accept the practices despite their opposing moral views.  Brock also argues, in a third section, the cost-benefit ration of adopting voluntary active euthanasia and concludes his argument by favoring a change in policy to adopt physician assisted suicide, obviously with some limitations, to help competent terminally ill patients to end their agony and alleviate their pain.

Brock’s main argument supporting voluntary active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide relies on personal self-determination and autonomy. He believes that competent patients ought to have the freedom to weigh the benefits and burdens of their own life, establish its’ value and decide whether their life is truly worth living. Brock argues that both, physician assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia, are very similar to each other although physician assisted suicide is endorsed in recent bioethics and not euthanasia. Typically in physician assisted suicide a patient terminates his or her own life with a lethal dose of a medication provided by the physician. On the other hand, in euthanasia the physician directly applies the lethal dose on the patients, many of which are unable to perform that tasks themselves. The only difference lies on who applies the lethal dose but the final decision is always the patients.’  Thus, the same morals exist in both cases and Brock advocates that both cases rely on the consent of the patient. The choice rests fully in the hands of the patients. Why, then, does the public or legal policy permit one such practice while condemning the other? Why should anyone else deny a patient the right to die with dignity?

On the contrary, the opposition of physician assisted suicide and active euthanasia claim that whether patients’ self-determination and autonomy supports such practices it is nevertheless still ethically immoral and impermissible to allow such practices. In addition, a second argument claims that even when physician assisted suicide or euthanasia is not really morally or ethically wrong, the public and legal policy should never to permit it. Conservative people believe that allowing euthanasia or physician assisted suicide would influence a bleak murderous trend and lead society to morally and ethically decay into a “society of death.” However, if we consider a case of a patient with a terminal case of thyroid gland cancer and all the agony that such patients go through in the terminal state of their lives, wouldn’t it be immoral to force such patients to practically go through hell on earth? Since when is human torture ethical?

 Brock advocates change in current policy to allow voluntary active euthanasia for competent patients. I personally believe that each individual is in charge of their own life and should, therefore, be allowed to decide how to die. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are fundamental rights in American society. Therefore, each individual ought to follow his own autonomy and decide what is in his or her own best interest. Who is more capable to evaluate whether your life is worth living other than yourself?

Finally, Brock concludes his argument by supporting voluntary active euthanasia. Physicians have to be involved in the process, one way or another, but ought to seek only for the best interest of the patient. Ideally, the physicians involvement is necessary and preferable to counter possible social disapproval and because someone has to be accountable and responsible for exercising such authority. Even though the issue seems highly controversial at this time, I believe there will be a time when we, mankind, truly understands one another, including our pain, and sympathize with the practice to alleviate agonizing patients and provide them with a dignifying death. Ancient Greeks always believed that “to die with glory [and dignity], is to live forever” and nowadays people highly regard how they will be remembered upon their deaths. In extreme cases, people have gone as far as launching their bodies to the universe. Why should any of us force others to die without dignity and wander endlessly in agony for days, weeks, sometimes even months or years? Voluntary active euthanasia lends itself to a practical application. Perhaps in the near future, there will be drastic changes to adopt such practice and allow fellow persons do die with dignity and respect, of course as long as the practice of euthanasia is closely monitored and never abused.