Voluntary Active Euthanasia and Non-Voluntary Active Euthanasia
Download
Read an extract
Themes
Euthanasia, VAE Voluntary Active Euthanasia, NAE Non-voluntary Active Euthanasia, terminal illness, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, autonomy, morals, lethal injection, assisted suicide, right to life, death
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 6
Abstract
Terminal illnesses such as cancer and Alzheimer's disease, while in advanced stages, render a victim helpless and subject them to lifetime pain. For example, an elderly person may be in the early stages of Alzheimer's and he has been informed about the incapacitation and the opportunistic illnesses, such as pneumonia, that may occur as the illness progresses to advanced stages. Thus, while still competent to make decisions, the individual may make a voluntary wish to die when he becomes incompetent, by requesting a physician to make a lethal injection. This act of intentionally causing the other person to die for the sake of relieving suffering is known as voluntary active euthanasia (VAE). A competent person needs to consent to his death in order for VAE to occur (Patrick, Doran, & Warren, 139). In a contrasting situation, the elderly person gets to late-stage Alzheimer's that has rendered him mentally incompetent and he has less than six months to live. He had left no advance directives on his interest to waive his right to life when he gets to this point. Therefore, his family or caregivers consider it necessary to put him to death in a bid to prevent him from suffering. This decision is termed non-voluntary euthanasia (NAE) since it is based on the view that the victim lacks the capacity to give consent. In order for NAE to occur, an individual is considered mentally incompetent to make the decision or preference to live or die (Patrick, Doran, & Warren, 139). Given these two scenarios, I argue that VAE is morally permissible, while NAE is morally impermissible.
Extract
[...] Opponents of VAE also raise their arguments based on innocence notion embedded in the Sanctity of Life principle. It premises, intentionally killing innocent human being is wrong, VAE allows the intentional killing of innocent human beings, hence, VAE is morally wrong (Patrick, Doran, & Warren, 145). In this argument, the life of all human beings is valued and is sacred and by virtue of these components, it is wrong to kill intentionally. In a similar lens, Kant explains that human beings should be considered an end in themselves as opposed to a means. [...]
[...] This decision is termed non-voluntary euthanasia (NAE) since it is based on the view that the victim lack the capacity to give consent. In order for NAE to occur, an individual is considered mentally incompetent to make the decision or preference to live or die (Patrick, Doran, & Warren, 139). Given these two scenarios, I argue that VAE is morally permissible while NAE is morally impermissible. I will present my paper in two sections. The first section will focus on presenting a logical argument that VAE is morally permissible. [...]
[...] By the fact that we are human, we should be valued. Since we shouldn't be a means to our own ends, ending our lives as a way of overcoming suffering is perceived as morally wrong. I think that the premise VAE is wrong since it involves intentional killing of an innocent human being is overlooked in some situations. For example, assuming a mother is suffering from a deadly disease that is highly infectious and has no cure. She is living with her children and she fears infecting them with the disease. [...]
[...] This contention is based on the view that generally, euthanasia functions against the force of nature, which focuses on maintaining bodily survival. In addition to this, Gay-Williams indicates that euthanasia fails to recognize human dignity of maintaining life, which is a key goal for survival. Based on these premises, VAE is considered argued out as immoral. I contend Gay-Williams argument and consider the premise that VAE violates the basic nature of living as logically invalid. I agree with him that nature dictates that the right of every human's survival be respected. [...]
[...] In connection to this, one may term my argument illogical. This critical point of view, however, fails to consider that before conducting VAE, a victim is thoroughly evaluated to prove that their expressed preference is in their best interest. In other words, it is proven that there is no abuse of autonomy and that the competence of the individual is not inherently compromised by unexpressed intentions. III. NAE Is Not Morally Permissible Although I support the argument that VAE is morally permissible, I hold a contrary view in the case of NAE. [...]
