Can One End Their Life When in Suffering?
Medical Ethical Dilemma
In the defense of the right to die, it is mainly understood that an individual who has no will to live or has a terminal and critical illness should have the will to end their own life, deny life-extending treatment, or use aided suicide to terminate their life. Both the concept and the person empowered to make such a decision are the heated areas of debate. As such, the ethical dilemma to live or die when in suffering is one that has caused divisions around the subject with both supporting and opposing sides holding strong views for their positions. Even so, the matter of euthanasia and the right to die is one that should be carefully examined under the principles of bioethics such as justice and autonomy, looking into the underlying reasons for resolving the dilemma of whether to live or die when suffering.
The right to die, which is a concept that is intertwined with the idea of euthanasia, covers several dimensions (Math and Chaturvedi 899). These range from voluntary to involuntary, which incorporates guardian and physician involvement; passive to active, which refers to treatment withdrawal or drug administration.
The modern-day proponents of the right to die seek rationality. They suggest the decision to continue living or to kill oneself should be based on the autonomy of the involved agent and not as a result of a decision of a family member or a physician, in the case of a mentally stable person. In other cases of mental illness or instability, the best way forward under the prevailing circumstances should be determined based on approaches, such as utilitarianism, fairness, and due deliberation.
The right to die also goes hand-in-hand with self-determination. This position draws from the idea that since one has the right to live, they also, in the same token, have the right to die. This, therefore, raises the question of whether the two rights can coexist (Kalal 75543). In this regard, however, many argue that the right to life is inalienable while the right to die is not and they, therefore, cannot coexist.The universality of the right to die is based on questions of whether the right is general or it only relates to terminal and critical illnesses. Some argue that since the right to live is not the same as the obligation to live, it can coexist with the right to die. Even so, the different schools of thought do not come to a point of agreement where they settle on one position, and as such, the right to die has many supporters and rejecters.
Those who argue for the right state that: death is natural and should not be guided by preventive laws if people seek it, one’s decision to live or die should not concern others, euthanasia can be controlled and regulated to support the right, and one should have both the right to live and die on their terms. On the other side, those who argue against it state that: the right could have adverse consequences to humanity, it is ethically immoral giving people pressure to end their lives, it is akin to eliminating terminally ill people, it decreases palliative care to such patients.
Definition of the Key Terms
- The right to die suggests that people are entitled to terminate their lives or go through voluntary euthanasia at will.
- Voluntary euthanasia is the ending of a person’s life at their request to avoid suffering.
- Autonomy is a principle of bioethics referring to the ability to think and act independently and freely (SASLHA 3).
- Justice is also a bioethics principle that involves retributive and distributive justice, rights, and respect of the law. Retributive justice refers to making wrong things right, distributive justice refers to equity in resource allocation, rights involves the duties around people’s special advantages, and respect of the law refers to the performance of acts that are within the law.
Alternative Points of View on the Dilemma
All patients have the right to make decisions regarding the treatments they receive, whether to live or die, and how to die if they wish. This is based on self-determination and autonomy to health and life. After rightful and due considerations are made, autonomous decisions to die cannot be rejected based on human rights; one has the right to live and to have a dignified death (Patil 9). Supporters of physician aided suicide (PAS) suggests that justice in the right to die is served when one is relieved from suffering when the quality of life is extremely low where one suffers unresolvable illness to the point that death seems as the best option. Voluntary euthanasia, therefore, serves as an extension to a patient’s autonomy when there is no other way of recovery.
California, Oregon, Colorado, Washington, and Vermont passed laws in different years providing protocols for PAS, allowing terminal patients to receive lethal medication (Nehra, Kumar and Nehra 60). With this move by the states, organizations have increasingly pushed for the legalization of autonomy and justice where the right to die is prohibited.
On the other side, there are those who are against the right to die. For instance, many religious circles stand for the sanctity of life and its preservation. Christians view life as a God-given gift and, therefore, it should not be taken away. The Muslims believe that it is God who has the right to give and take a life; however, they view the withdrawal of treatment as allowed when treatment is futile. These religious groups, including Catholics, consider euthanasia as intentional killing and equate it to murder. Hindus, accept the right to die when one is tormented by illnesses and has no desire to continue living. Many of the opponents of the right to die stem from religious circles and human rights advocates.
Moral Principles Associated with the Dilemma
As observed, the dilemma around the right to die came about as a result of the emergence of bioethics. Consequently, it should be examined under the principles within the subject. The two principles used in this analysis are justice and autonomy. Autonomy involves one’s free and independent will to decide or act. The principle holds when examining the question of the case; whether to end life in suffering. Contrary to the positions held by the supporting and opposing camps, one has a right to their own life. This means that they decide and act as they wish. However, this only holds when one is in a proper mental state to decide. Autonomy allows one to live or die, especially those in suffering. Further, even contrary to suffering, one can decide and act on their own as pertaining to their lives, which is why there are cases of suicide. Those who have no alternative to improve their suffering especially in cases of terminal illnesses can, therefore, decide to continue living or to die.
In terms of justice, the question can be examined under the component of rights. People have the right to live. As such, unless this right is not interfered with by an external party, it is just for a person to alleviate themselves from the torture of living by deciding to die where there is no way to resolve their pain. In the case where one cannot make a decision for themselves, all the components of justice have to be met. If there is no way of fulfilling them, then it will be just to help a patient if living is considered more tormenting than dying.
Conclusion and Recommendation
Based on the principles of autonomy and justice, my view and recommendation to solve the dilemma is that patients in suffering should be allowed to make their decisions if they have the mental capacity. If they are not in the mental state to decide, the best option of whether to live or die should be sought after meeting all the components of justice and due deliberation.
Works Cited
Kalal, Nipin. "Euthanasia: Right to Live or Right to Die." International Journal of Current Research 10.11 (2018): 75543-75546.
Math, Suresh Bada and Santosh K. Chaturvedi. "Euthanasia: Right to Life vs Right to Die." Indian Journal of Medical Research (2012): 899-902.
Nehra, Dharmender Kumar, Pradeep Kumar and Sheetal Nehra. "Euthanasia: An Understanding." Research Gate (2013): 55-77.
Patil, Amit. "Euthanasia - Ethical and Legal Perspectives." Journal of Health Sciences (2013): 7-10.
SASLHA. "Principles of Ethics." South African Speech-Language-Hearing Association (SASLHA) (2011): 1-12.
HS 4500 Case Analysis Grading Rubric
Case Analysis grading rubric Total: 300 points
Content 200 points
Very good/strong Good Fair Poor Very poor/weak
Appropriate choice/application of moral principles for dilemma; clear thesis 40 30 20 10 0
Well-supported arguments for student’s point of view
*Presents a resolution
*Provides adequate support for resolution 40 30 20 10 0
Accurate and appropriate information from refereed and quality sources
*At least five sources, including two peer-reviewed journals
*Describes the dilemma and presents factual background 40 30 20 10 0
Thorough, well-grounded analysis
*Discuss alternative points of view on the dilemma 50 40 30 20 10
Integration of information
*Includes definitions of relevant terms; applies, integrates definitions, as appropriate 20 15 10 5 0
Appropriate depth; no inclusion of superfluous or repetitive information 10 8 6 4 2
Total 93
Writing 100 points
Organization 40 30 20 10 0
Punctuation, grammar, spelling 30 25 20 15 10
Length of paper, referencing technique, correct formatting 20 15 10 5 0
Professional style of writing 10 8 6 4 2
Total 58
Overall Total 151