Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
of illness. I was not the cause of death.” Under current legal and moral norms, such a
response would have no credibility. The physician would be blameworthy for the patient's
death as surely as if he or she had actively killed the patient. Thus, the actions taken by a
physician to continue treatment to the very end are understood.
Euthanasia may also be classified as
. An act of euthanasia is
involuntary if it hastens the individual's death for his or her own good, but against their
wishes. Involuntary euthanasia, therefore, is no different in any morally relevant way from
unjustifiable homicide. However, what happens when the individual is incapable of agree-
ing or disagreeing? Suppose that a terminally ill person is unconscious and cannot make his
or her wishes known. Would hastening their death be permissible? It would be if there was
substantial evidence that the individual has given prior consent. The individual may have
told friends and relatives that, under certain circumstances, efforts to prolong their life
should not be undertaken or continued and might even have recorded their wishes in the
form of a living will or an audio- or videotape. When this level of substantial evidence of
prior consent exists, the decision to hasten death would be morally justified. A case of this
sort would be a case of voluntary euthanasia.
For a living will to be valid, the person signing it must be of sound mind at the time the
will is made and shown not to have altered their opinion in the interim between its signing
and the onset of the illness. In addition, the witnesses must not be able to benefit from the
individual's death. As the living will itself states, it is not a legally binding document. It is
essentially a passive request and depends on moral persuasion. Proponents of the will,
however, believe that it is valuable in relieving the burden of guilt often carried by health
professionals and the family in making the decision to allow a patient to die.
Those who favor euthanasia point out the importance of individual rights and freedom
of choice and look on euthanasia as a kindness ending the misery endured by the patient.
The thought of a dignified death is much more attractive than the process of continuous
suffering and gradual decay into nothingness. Viewing each person as a rational being pos-
sessing a unique mind and personality, proponents argue that terminally ill patients should
have the right to control the ending of their own life.
On the other hand, those opposed to euthanasia demand to know who has the right to
end the life of another. Some use religious arguments, emphasizing that euthanasia is in
direct conflict with the belief that only God has the power to decide when a human life
ends. Their view is that anyone who practices euthanasia is essentially acting in the place
of God and that no human should ever be considered omnipotent.
Others turn to the established codes, reminding those responsible for the care of patients
that they must do whatever is in their power to save a life. Their argument is that health
professionals cannot honor their pledge and still believe that euthanasia is justified. If ter-
minally ill patients are kept alive, there is at least a chance of finding a cure that might
be useful to them. Opponents of euthanasia feel that legalizing it would destroy the bonds
of trust between doctor and patient. How would sick individuals feel if they could not be
sure that their physician and nurse would try everything possible to cure them, knowing
that if their condition worsened, they would just lose faith and decide that death would
be better? Opponents of euthanasia also question whether it will be truly beneficial to the
suffering person or will only be a means to relieve the agony of the family. They believe that
destroying life (no matter how minimal) merely to ease the emotional suffering of others is
indeed unjust.
involuntary
or
voluntary
