The Hippocratic Oath states this line, “I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggested any such counsel”. This is part of the oath sworn upon by physicians. It is a vow which they promised to fulfill but up to what extent should they follow this creed? Up to what extent has the patient power over his life? When are physicians free from the bond of the Hippocratic Oath?
Euthanasia or mercy killing is the act of causing the death of a person. It may be passive or active. Passive euthanasia is the act of allowing the person to die by eliminating all instruments that aids his survival while active euthanasia is the performance of a legal drug to the patient so it can hasten his death. Some acts are involuntary, which meant that it is the family members who decided to administer euthanasia may it be passive or active while most cases are voluntary wherein it is the patient himself who decided to ask assistance from a physician so he may end his suffering.
Those who condemn euthanasia argue that each patient has a right to life and to cause his death either by passive or active euthanasia is a violation of this right and is therefore wrong (Hospers 192). Right is inherent to an individual. It is “a justified claim on which others may not trespass” (Hospers 192). But given this definition of right, does it not add the option to choose death over living in the hands of the patient?
There is no contesting the argument that each patient has a right to life but the question involving the qualification of the word “life” should also be discussed. Let’s take into consideration the three cases presented by Hospers:
Keri Ann has no chances of living a normal life. She may use her five senses to experience life but she will never ever have the opportunity to normally interact with other individual. We can say that there is no way she can enjoy life in this manner.
The Old Man has reached his optimum age. He was fortunate enough to live his life in full over the past 75 years. Unfortunately, it is now time for him to suffer the pain of old age. Shall he still continue to cling to life at the expense of the government’s finances? He will definitely not enjoy his life after loosing a kidney and suffering from pneumonia. Nevertheless, he may still cherish the time spent with his grandchildren and loved ones.
Michael indicated before the accident that if ever he will be in a vegetative state, he would rather die. Unfortunately, he did go into a vegetative state with very minimal way of expressing himself. His physicians claim that amidst this minimal show of expression, he has shown appreciation of the current life he is living.
Given these different situations, can we count their life of equal value? Are all of these lives still worth living? If you are in their shoes would you still want to continue living if it meant additional suffering not only on your part but also of your loved ones because of the massive expenses they are spending?
Right to life meant right to a purposive life which is a life of meaning. Meaning is only possible if you can use majority of your faculties but the moment your main faculty, the brain, diminishes then your reason for living is cut. If you will even extend your understanding, if medicine has not improved this much you will definitely be dead by now. It is just a benefit medicine has provided us but it has not provided all the answers for us.
The utilitarian approach in analyzing euthanasia suggests that whatever will benefit the majority should be considered over the benefit of one. People under intensive care or special medication use a lot of the government’s fund. These funds could have been further used for other more productive and beneficial programs like education and livelihood. It may sound selfish but survival of the majority should be on top of the priority rather than the right of only one. If it comes to a point where other lives will suffer as much as the patient is suffering, it is best to let nature take its course and allow the person to rest.
Allowing the person to die is considered more innocent but some claim that it is not humane. If you will discontinue medication on a patient, he will definitely experience pain and we will never know how long this pain will last because we can never tell before hand the limit of a person’s life. We can assume but we cannot provide in full accuracy the date of a person’s demise. Thus, some argue that if passive euthanasia is accepted by society so should active euthanasia.
James Rachels provided an analogy to this. According to him, there is very little difference to the act of drowning from doing nothing while seeing a person unconsciously under water (2007). Doing harm is no worse in allowing harm because both act shares the same intention, death and results to the same thing, death. Nevertheless, the act of personally administering a drug to patient will lead us to a series of debate. Hastening death through lethal injection is equivalent to putting in our hands the life of a person. The end of medicine is healing (Beauchamp, 2008) but when healing ends so is the task of the physician.
Patients who have been diagnosed as terminally ill are cases where physicians themselves have surrendered. They know they have no power over life. They can only do so much but cannot guarantee anything. They are not gods who can add an inch to a person’s life span. They themselves have no full control of their future but it does not give them any right to end another. They have done their best in trying to heal the patient. They have exhausted all means but still failed. Allowing nature to take over is equivalent to allowing God to intervene and this can never happen if you induce a lethal drug on a person.
References
Beauchamp, Tom. (2008). The Principle of Beneficence in Applied Ethics. Retrieved on 22 May 2010 from, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principle-beneficence/
Hospers, John. (1995) Human Conduct: Problem of Ethics. USA: Wadsworth Publishing
Snyder-Howard, Frances. (2007) Doing Vs. Allowing Harm. Retrieved on 22 May 2010 from, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doing-allowing/
