The Ethical Valuation of Euthanasia
The ethical valuation of euthanasia has been hotly contested within both the judicial and ethical arena for the past two decades. Philosophers and politicians alike stand on either side of the debate without a clear view of the future ahead. Euthanasia itself is a term that needs further clarification; it is a term that encompasses two parts active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Within active euthanasia there is an "intentional attempt at mercy killing" whereas within passive euthanasia a patient is "allowed to die". The difference, though subtle in nature has a strong ethical connotations. Within the medical profession, active euthanasia is argued to be strictly unethical precisely because it goes against the creed of medical ethics. The AMA (American Medical Association) argues that by allowing active euthanasia we are promoting a culture that is antithetical to the practice of medicine. They forward several rational explanations for this perspective. First, that there have been cases where medical technology has allowed those who were incurable to become cured, as in the case of HIV/AIDS and certain types of cancers. Another argument is that patients, especially those who cannot speak for themselves may
Another strong objection against the above logic is the issue of "letting someone die". In either case, the subject of euthanasia is filled with room for interpretation. It is true that this may violate some intrinsic value system that the agent of action may have, but each individual has their own value scale. Since euthanasia is at a cross section of many different philosophical doctrines there is no way to say on a grander scale that one is always right over the other, unless establishes a priority, as in life over liberty, or liberty over life. Although no explicit action is taken, the negation of any effort to help constitutes as euthanasia as well. I argue that the responsibility of every individual should be to aid others in what they truly want. At the heart of this ethical question is who the agent of action is and thus who is morally responsible in the case of passive euthanasia. Within this context, life is the imperative, and therefore in every decision the individual makes he/she should want to live. Since euthanasia itself has a much broader real impact that just the person who dies, he would argue that it is unethical. Since euthanasia does hurt the family members and people involved in this situation that should be taken into consideration. Detractors of passive euthanasia argue that the action of not doing anything when capable of saving a life is inherently unethical. The question of morality within this case is abstract because real life situations are extremely complicated and diluted. A categorical imperative surrounding Euthanasia would state that euthanasia should always be allowed. The only method to formulate a comprehensive ethical determination of euthanasia is to study it case by case, and to determine its ethical value based on how it meets established criteria that combines all of the ethical considerations discussed above. Under Kantian ethics, the question of euthanasia deals with a universal moral imperative, and euthanasia would fail the test.
Common topics in this essay:
According Mill's,
Medical Association,
Imperative Kant,
,
Using Rawl's,
John Rawls,
Stuart Mill's,
passive euthanasia,
active euthanasia,
categorical imperative,
mercy killing,
individual dies,
ethical value,
agent action,
ethics system,
individual die,
kantian ethics,
determine ethical value,
ethics question euthanasia,
ethical value based,
euthanasia passive euthanasia,
|
Acceptance Essays
