Euthanasia_ Does it negate the concept of HOPE?
Euthanasia is a very complex and controversial topic which manages to challenge our hearts and minds at the outset. It circumspects the challenging concepts of socio-political, moral and medical controversies which somehow manages to abridge the gap between hope and the unmitigated pain. Euthanasia is derived from a greek word 'eu-thantos' meaning 'a good death', subjected to widely differing understandings.
The term generally finds its use to refer the killing of those who are irreversibly ill and in great pain or distress, in orer to spare them from further suffering.
Most of the groups currently campaigning for changes in the law allow the practice of Euthanasia, do on the grounds of Voluntary Euthanasia.. Here, Euthanasia is carried out at the request of the person 'to be killed'. Sometimes, it is also termed as 'Assisted Suicide', because the patient opts for death. In case of the terminally ill patients - Lethal Injections, Poison etc are often used in places where euthanasia is legalised, to put the patient to death considering his request. A person also may, while in good health, make a written request for euthanasia, if though accident or illness, s/he should come to be incapable of making or expressing a decision to die, in pain or without the use of mental faculties, and there is no reasonable hope of recovering (Living Will). In killing a person who has made such a request, has reaffirmed it from time to time, and is now in some of the Nation-States one could truly claim to be acting as accord to his/her consent.
When the person killed is capable of consenting to his / her own death, but does not do so, either because s/he is not asked or because s/he is asked and chooses continued living. Killing someone who has not consented to being klled can be regarded as euthanasia only when the motive for killing is the desire to prevent suffering on the part of the person to be killed. It is odd, of course, that anyone acting from this motive should disregard the wishes of the person for whose sake the action is done. Genuine cases of Involuntary Euthanasia appear to be rare.
If a human is not capable of understanding the choice between life & death, euthanasia would then be Non- Voluntary. Those in the situation include gravely deformed or severely retarded infants, and people who through accident illness or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved, without having previously requested or rejected euthanasia in these circumstances. This case is much akin to the status of animals or human foetus. Euthanasia is non-voluntary when the subject has never had the capacity tochoose to live or to die. This is the situation of the deformed infant or the older human being wh has been severely mentally retarded since birth. It is also Non - Voluntary when the subject is, not now but ever, capable of making the crucial choice and did not then express any preference relevant to his/ her present condition.
If we were to approach the issue of life or death for a seriously defective human infant without any prior discussion to the ethics of killing, in general, we might be unable to resolve the conflict between the sanctity of human life and the goal of reducing suffering. But what makes the concept of wrongness of killing a human wrong, is characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self consciousness that makes a difference. Deformed infants lack these characteristics, since such infants are defective and most of the time have no chance of cure, and also their consent cannot be taken as to whether it wants to live or to die, the case amounts to non-voluntary euthanasia. But since , of the above reasons, killing a defective infant is not same as killing a normal person. Non - Voluntary euthanasia may be also considered in the case of those those who were once capable of choosing to live or die, but now through accident or old age have permanently lost their capacity, and did not, prior to losing it, express any views about euthanasia in such circumstances. On the other hand, it is plausible to hold that killing a self conscious being is a more serious matter than killing a merely self conscious being.
We have a few distinct grounds on which the above vexing question could be argued.
On the other hand, we can hardly refuse to recognise that an application of the doctrine of Euthanasia would provide a solution for many grave problems which the modern state is obliged to face. In all communities a great number of children are both seriously defective in body or mind. Most of them are by no means curable. The only substitute for euthanasia here is segregation and training for these disabled kids.
On the historical side, the philosophers and especially the later schools (stoics, epicureans etc.) were interested chiefly in the questions of suicide; of euthanasis in other forms we hear little. Plato, However, whose model state is to a great extent an idealised form of the constitution of Sparta, is infamous of a somewhat ruthless application of the principles under discussion, to weakly children and to invalids. Plato considered that invalids ought not to be kept alive by an elaborate regimen, but allowed to die, as they are quite unable to attain higher development of mind and body.
Euthanasia somehow does not negate the concept of hope, but how do we assign a justificatory device to analyse it? The answer, however perplexing, is assigning an intrinsic value to life. That brings back to our previous debate ' Value of Life'. Till the time we cannot ascertain the line of distinction between motive and intent, the rational consideration to perform Euthanasia will always be questionable. Is there any formula through which life's worth can be established? Is there any specific reason of our existence? The questions are yet to be answered, and till then we are at the crossroads of Hope and Humanity.
If we were to approach the issue of life or death for a seriously defective human infant without any prior discussion to the ethics of killing, in general, we might be unable to resolve the conflict between the sanctity of human life and the goal of reducing suffering. But what makes the concept of wrongness of killing a human wrong, is characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self consciousness that makes a difference. Deformed infants lack these characteristics, since such infants are defective and most of the time have no chance of cure, and also their consent cannot be taken as to whether it wants to live or to die, the case amounts to non-voluntary euthanasia. But since , of the above reasons, killing a defective infant is not same as killing a normal person. Non - Voluntary euthanasia may be also considered in the case of those those who were once capable of choosing to live or die, but now through accident or old age have permanently lost their capacity, and did not, prior to losing it, express any views about euthanasia in such circumstances. On the other hand, it is plausible to hold that killing a self conscious being is a more serious matter than killing a merely self conscious being.
We have a few distinct grounds on which the above vexing question could be argued.
- The classical utilitarian claim that since self conscious beings are capable of fearing their own death, killing them has worse effects on others.
- The preference utilitarian calculation which counts the thwarting of the victim's desire to go on living as an important reason against killing.
- The theory of rights according to which to have a right one must have the ability to desire that to which one has a right, so that to have a right to his life one must be able to desire one's own continued existence.
- Respect for the autonomous decisions of rational agents.
On the other hand, we can hardly refuse to recognise that an application of the doctrine of Euthanasia would provide a solution for many grave problems which the modern state is obliged to face. In all communities a great number of children are both seriously defective in body or mind. Most of them are by no means curable. The only substitute for euthanasia here is segregation and training for these disabled kids.
On the historical side, the philosophers and especially the later schools (stoics, epicureans etc.) were interested chiefly in the questions of suicide; of euthanasis in other forms we hear little. Plato, However, whose model state is to a great extent an idealised form of the constitution of Sparta, is infamous of a somewhat ruthless application of the principles under discussion, to weakly children and to invalids. Plato considered that invalids ought not to be kept alive by an elaborate regimen, but allowed to die, as they are quite unable to attain higher development of mind and body.
Euthanasia somehow does not negate the concept of hope, but how do we assign a justificatory device to analyse it? The answer, however perplexing, is assigning an intrinsic value to life. That brings back to our previous debate ' Value of Life'. Till the time we cannot ascertain the line of distinction between motive and intent, the rational consideration to perform Euthanasia will always be questionable. Is there any formula through which life's worth can be established? Is there any specific reason of our existence? The questions are yet to be answered, and till then we are at the crossroads of Hope and Humanity.
Comments
Post a Comment