Euthanasia, how merciful; towards a philosophical justification

Edem Matthew
INTRODUCTION

Just like the moral issues surrounding suicide, the problem of euthanasia has a long
history of philosophical discussion. On the whole, ancient Greek thinkers seem to have
favoured euthanasia, even though they opposed suicide. An exception is Hippocrates
(460-370 BCE), the ancient Greek physician, who in his famous oath states that "I will
not prescribe a deadly drug to please someone, nor give advice that may cause his death."
The entire oath is presented below, which places emphasis on the value of preserving life
and in putting the good of patients above the private interests of physicians. These two
aspects of the oath make it an important creed for many heath care workers today. In
medieval times, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim philosophers opposed active euthanasia,
although the Christian Church has always accepted passive euthanasia. During the
Renaissance, English humanist Thomas More (1478-1535) defended Euthanasia in book
Utopia (1516). More describes in idealic terms the function of hospitals. Hospital workers
watch after patients with tender care and do everything in their power to cure ills.
However, when a patient has a torturous and incurable illness, the patient has the option
to die, either through starvation or opium. In New Atlantis (1627), British philosopher
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) writes that physicians are "not only to restore the health, but
to mitigate pain and dolour; and not only when such mitigation may conduce to recovery,
but when it may serve to make a fair and easy passage."

Allowing a patient to die raises one set of ethical issues. Actively helping a patient
achieve death, often referred to as euthanasia, raises still other moral questions. For many
years, medical ethicists have debated whether there is a significant distinction between
the two courses of action. In the United States (with the exception of Oregon), Canada,
and most other nations, euthanasia is illegal. The Dutch parliament formally legalized
voluntary euthanasia in 2000, provided that it involved the full consent of the patient and
agreement of all concerned medical personnel

EUTHANASIA; MEANING AND CONCEPT:

From the historical point of view, the term euthanasia has been used in reference to an
easy death and was also used to mean the killing of a person for that person’s own good
especially in relieving suffering. But now, the term can also be used to indicate the
extraction of life-prolonging medical treatment. A number of cases have made euthanasia
to be a recent topic of concern in the present age. One of these is that there are different
cases of people dying from unknown diseases than in the past. Another factor owes it
origin to medical and technological advancement in the society. With artificial
respirators, dialysis and other technology, life can now be prolonged. Thus, euthanasia
encompasses both killing and allowing to die on the grounds of mercy. These are termed
as active and euthanasia respectively. But if someone’s health constitutes a nuisance to
the society for example like Yar’adua’s own can killing him to curb this menace be called
mercy. So the word mercy no longer serves as binding appendage in the performance of
euthanasia. There are basically two types of euthanasia namely active and passive. There
is another distinction which is not as controversial like the former one, but plays an
important part in the discussion of the subject in question. These are voluntary
euthanasia- which involves the consent of the person involved, and involuntary
euthanasia- which is carried out without the consent/permission of the person involved.
Apart from this distinction we can also talk of voluntary, involuntary and nonvoluntary
active or passive euthanasia. So, on the whole we can speak of six types of euthanasia,
namely: 1. Voluntary Passive Euthanasia, 2. Voluntary Active Euthanasia; 3. Involuntary
Passive euthanasia; 4. Involuntary Active Euthanasia; 5. Nonvoluntary Passive
Euthanasia; 6. Nonvoluntary Active Euthanasia

One of the most debated aspects of euthanasia is Voluntary passive euthanasia. In this
case, the rational faculty of the victim is still intact. Here, the basic assumption is that the
patient he is still in the state of sanity and can still make sound decisions. He or she is
fully aware and desires to be allowed to die either delayal of dossal administration or
withdrawal of life-prolonging treatment. Speaking on this, proponents of the natural law,
derived from Aquinas’s view of life will say that allowing someone to die is wrong if the
intention includes that person’s death either as an end or as a means1. Proponents of this
view are of the view that life is good and that all beings should act towards the
preservation, which shows that life is good. But another interpretation of the fundamental
premise of natural rights will permit it because traditionally, right to life does not
necessarily imply the positive acts to protect someone’s life. Contractarians will almost
certainly allow for voluntary passive euthanasia. Their theories give room for compliance
with one’s voluntary and rational requests that he or she be allowed to die. There are
some basic liberties that are inherent in the rights and freedom of man. One of this is the
Euthanasia, how merciful; towards a philosophical justification
Edem Matthew
freedom or liberty to choose one’s medication. Although Contractarians build on this
fact, they are also afraid that the liberty to choose one’s medication could be threatened
by actually withholding the treatment. Still on the same pedestal, utilitarians generally
permit people to die voluntarily. This is based on the fact that life should be measured or
summed up by happiness. In this case, the victim is undergoing enormous pains and
sufferings, withholding the treatment or allowing them to die expunges this plight.
However act utilitarians do not consent to this. Their basic argument is that the victim
might be mistaken about the utility or happiness prolonging his or her life may bring to
the society.

There is also a contention that it is permissible in some case to withhold remedy and
allow a patient to die but it is not admissible and moral enough to take any action on the
patient that is meant to expedite his or her death. This position is characteristic of the
traditionalist and has once been adopted by House Delegates of the American Medical
Association in 1973. Responding to the traditionalists, James Rachels argues that a
person’s intention is relevant to the assessment of his character. As such the
traditionalists are mistaken because their view is dependent on the indefensible
distinction between intentional and non-intentional cessation of existence (i.e. life). But
intention is not relevant in determining the morality of an action. The rightness of an act
must be decided on the objective reasons for and against it. i Rachels also argues that
active and passive euthanasia are equivalent, so the acceptance of one pre-empts the
approval of the other. This is predicated by arguments for euthanasia which focuses upon
two humane and significant namely: compassion for those below par and concern for the
dignity associated with freedom of choice. Rachels prefer active euthanasia to passive
euthanasia once it has been agreed right from the fore that the agony of the inveterate sick
should not be prolonged. To say this according to him, is to endorse the option that leads
to more suffering rather than less and this is contrary to the humanitarian impulse that
prompts the decision not to prolong life and suffering in the first place.ii

In interrogating various samples of opinions about the moral justifiability of euthanasia it

is apparent that those who argue for the moral legitimacy of the subject in question lay
emphasis on the question of humanness. Apart from the various arguments elucidated
above there are other two arguments that constitute the basic ritual for appeal underlying
the appeals often conjoined with the appeal for primacy of individual freedom. Let’s
consider the arguments below:
 1. It is cruel and inhumane to refuse the plea of a terminally ill person that his or
her life be mercifully ended in order to avoid future suffering and indignity”.iii

2. Individuals should be free to do as they choose as long as their actions do not

result in harm to others. That is since no one is harmed by terminally ill
patients undergoing euthanasia, their freedom to have their lives ended in this
fashion should not be infringed”iv

But on the other hand those who argue against legitimacy of euthanasia emphasize the
sanctity of life. This is mostly influenced by religo-cultural views of life. For example
almost all religions especially Christianity emphasizes on the principle of the “sanctity of
life”. In the same vein various cultures that have not been influenced by western ideology
of the nothingness of life value life and regard it as the primia ultimatum of the human
person. In this case, the intentional killing of anyone is always immoral no matter the act.
In this way there is an advancement of rule-utilitarianism which holds that any legal
recognization of euthanasia will lead to a damaging consequence for the society. The
above argument ensued by the two groups stress an important aspect of morality.
However since ethics is dynamic let’s consider the opinions of some notable philosopher
in regards to this case. According to Aristotle:

…all men act for some good and that good is

their end. That is that for the sake of which a
thing is done… the agent is moved to act in
view of the good which attracts it as an end.v

The good end implied by Aristotle here is happiness. According to him, happiness is the
activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. This will therefore presuppose that to
achieve that end which is happiness, the means must not be immoral. Applying this to
euthanasia, does it really imply happiness? Nobody knows since those who die do not
normally come back to tell us whether they are happy with their new state of life. This
Aristotelian view is summarily referred to as Eudemonism.

The egoists will often consent to voluntary passive euthanasia. Since

there is primacy of human freedom especially in the humanitarian led-
society, the individual through his rationality can as well use his
discretion to choose whether to live or not. In other words, consenting
Euthanasia, how merciful; towards a philosophical justification
Edem Matthew
to death is out of freewill and there is nothing wrong about that
because nobody’s right was infringed upon by the time this decision
was being made. But the moral code of which we are so much
affianced with does not give room for individualism. No man has ever
and will be independent of the community or the society. In other
words, no man is indispensable. However, for Plato, ignorance is the
cause of immoral acts. For him, a man who indulges in evil acts does
not really know what he is doing for evil is not part of human
rationality. Wisdom, for him is the virtue of the rational part of the soul
(reason) while courage is the virtue of the spirited part (the higher
emotions) and temperance is the subordination of both the spirited and
the rational part to the rule of the appetitive part.vi Obviously, from the
foregoing, it is evident through medical experiments and certification
that anyone who is ill always has an inch of distortion in his mentating
process. In other words, his or her cerebration is affected by the
present state of one’s health. According to Freidrich Nietzsche, “most
of the conscious thinking of a (person) is secretly guided and forced
into certain channels by his instincts”. In this case, the sick man who
desires euthanasia might probably have been influenced by his health
which might have affected his mental state even to the stage of
mental psychosis. It is this incoherence, delusions and distorted
perception about reality that might have led him or her to make that
decision. There was one of my friends who was very sick. His illness
seemed incurable. A lot of money was wasted without any reasonable
result. His parents were almost giving up. He was my friend and a very
close friend, so I did not want him to die. So I kept on visiting the
family and comforting the parents. One day I walked to the doctor who
was a specialist in that field. I asked him if ever believed that there is a
cure for this. He simply looked down and asked me : what do you know
about this? I told him, “I know nothing except that if you devote your
life to this and stop contemplating on withdrawing his medications,
then you stand a better advantage of discovering the cure to this
disease”. He smiled and left. A; I was advocating row s that the patient
could be researched on and new discoveries made. He gave it a trial,
and then came the cure. After that a psychologist discovered that the
decisions of my friend were affected by a certain amount of
schizophrenia. Today, the doctor is now making it as a professor of
medicine. But whenever I’m with that my friend and remind him of that
had happened he will always tell me that when you are sick, you will
not know the sweetness of life.

Nevertheless, euthanasia is not supported in most religions of the

world. From a religious standpoint, God is the giver of life and the right
to take away that life is only restricted to his jurisdiction. Most
countries of the world do not adopt the idea. For example in Nigeria,
section 30 of the constitution does not give room for euthanasia in the
country. This goes a long way to show how the concept is rejected in
the society.

CONCLUSION

The arguments for and against euthanasia are all appealing to the
senses and always plunge researcher into a conundrum of indecision.
But let us consider the facts laid out above. If euthanasia is merciful,
then does the act of killing a fellow human bring about mercy? Not only
so, the person who makes the decision does not really know what he is
saying because he or she has been affected by the sickness and as
such his or her decision are only a product of the weakness of his
cognitive and moral faculty; and this is almost equivalent to suicide.
On the other hand active euthanasia violates the human fundamental
right to life. Moreover it also limits scientific research and discovery on
some new ailments that are in the society. Apart from this, human
dignity is reduced to its carnal bestiality. So on any angle it may seen
there is no cause for allowing euthanasia. Great care should also be
taken when taking decisions relating to life; because death is
irreversible and living is precious.
i T. A Mappes and J.S Zembaty: Biomedical Ethics (New York: McGraw Hill Company, 1981) p.
385
ii Blessing Agidigbi, Euthanasia: Conceptual and Ethical Issues in Iroegbu P. and Echekwube A.,
Kpim of Morality Ethics, General, Special and Professional
iii T. A Mappes and J.S Zembaty: op cit,380
iv Ibid
v F. H Eterovich: Approaches to Natural Law: From Plato to Kant (New York: Exposition Press,
1972), p.32
vi Blessing Agidigbi, Euthanasia op cit p. 129