Euthanasia and Morality
Euthanasia is a hot-button issue. It is synonymous with the word, “immoral.” However, there are circumstances when euthanasia can be considered a moral action. Each circumstance centers entirely on the individual who will die. They must choose to end their lives themselves, or they must have chosen prior to their condition. Moreover, they must be terminally ill, and in some cases their suffering must outweigh there existing estimated life for the decision to be considered moral. In addition, recovery can no longer be an option for euthanasia to be considered moral, especially in situations when the patient does not choose the act themselves. While it is difficult for some to understand, euthanasia is moral in circumstances such as these.
There are some situations in which euthanasia is permissible, as well as morally justifiable. For example, there are some states in the U.S., as well as areas in Europe that exercise what is known here as the Death with Dignity Law. In these states, any individual who has been given a terminal diagnosis can procure life-ending medication in lieu of undergoing life-saving treatment. Choosing to end one’s life is often considered suicide, but when the patient is terminal and using prescribed medication, it is different. It is also perhaps the most morally accepted form of euthanasia because the individual can take the medication themselves, effectively euthanizing themselves without the help of a second party. Some may argue treatment that may save an individual’s life is the more morally justifiable option, but in many cases, these treatments are painful and leave the person unable to care for themselves. They consider this fate worse than death. In this event, they are able to make the choice to terminate their own life while they still have all of their mental faculties about them. In this particular circumstance, the medication can be administered by a professional, family member or the patient themselves as long as it is done within the boundaries of an area that has legalized the law or act. Because the individual has stated for themselves that they understand the consequences of taking the medicine, that being death, and sometimes administer the medication themselves, it is morally permissible.
Living wills also allow another circumstance wherein euthanasia is morally justifiable. During the legal and moral debacle involving Terry Schiavo, a highly publicized case wherein a comatose woman survived on a feeding tube, the world now understands just how important living wills can be should special circumstances occur. In Schiavo’s case, she had been pronounced clinically brain dead. She was bound to a hospital bed and depended on others to care for her. With no living will, the only indication the legal or medical systems had to remove her feeding tube was her husband’s word. Schiavo’s husband insisted emphatically that Schiavo would not have wanted to live her remaining days in this way, and instead would want the feeding tube removed so that she may die in peace. Because there was no available living will saying what she would want, there was a moral imperative to suggest that removing her feeding tube was cruel, especially of Schiavo had never considered the consequences, and was never aware of what could happen. Eventually the feeding tube was removed in a morally precarious situation, as there was no official documentation stating what Schiavo wanted done with her body in its vegetative state. Had a living will been available, stating Schiavo’s specific wishes, it would have allowed for the situation to be inarguably moral when she was euthanized. The incident stands as a testament not only to euthanasia, but morality.
Finally, euthanasia is morally permissible in situations that disallow any recovery, and are only causing pain. In said situations, death is imminent, and the discomfort of patients is only being prolonged. In such a circumstance, the executor of a patient’s will may step in and make a morally just, but also compassionate decision to initiate euthanasia once it has been established that recovery is not possible for the patient. This does not mean a patient who is experiencing short-term discomfort is a candidate for euthanasia, nor that it is moral for the executor of an estate, or any other family member to suggest euthanasia without first establishing the patient has no chance to recover, and will suffer immensely until they die. Only under these specific circumstances would it be considered a moral situation. Even then, it would be best to have documentation of the patient’s wishes should they find themselves in a poor medical condition.
In sum, though it is difficult for some to believe, euthanasia is morally justifiable in some circumstances. If the individual is present in a jurisdiction that has passed the Death with Dignity Law, allowing them to decide when to procure life-ending medication, they are in control of the end of their life and, therefore, there is no immorality about the situation. A living will also allows for euthanasia to be a moral decision. The individual states prior to the medical incident what they want, and their wishes are carried out later on. Finally, if the patient has a short time to live, recovery is impossible, and suffering will be exponential, euthanasia can be a moral decision. It is important to respect the living individual’s wishes as they are dying, and while euthanasia is a difficult subject that many refute and believe immoral, there are circumstances wherein it can be morally permissible.
