1) What is Euthanasia?
It is the act of mercifully killing or allowing the death of people or domestic animals that are terminally ill or damaged in a reasonably painless manner. The word is derived from euthanatos, which means “easy death” in Greek. Since the early seventeenth century, when Francis Bacon described the phenomena as “after the fashion and semblance of a kindly & pleasant sleep” euthanasia has been used in precisely this sense in English. These days, the phrase is typically used to describe the means of achieving such a death.
2) Philosophical problems with Euthanasia:
In order to preserve the patient’s dignity, the moment of death must be honoured as a natural right of the patient. Because of this, the practice of euthanasia is fundamentally motivated by respect for the free will of the individual and solidarity with suffering. This justification complies with the ideals of autonomy and dignity that are explored in bioethics. The ability to make choices that will impact one’s life, health, physical and psychological well-being, and interpersonal connections is referred to as autonomy. It alludes to a person’s capacity to determine what is “good” or what is in his or her best interests. A person who possesses mental freedom and is unrestricted by either internal or external factors can therefore be said to be independent.
The autonomous act requires the person to be able to act in accordance with the decisions made and the choices made, which implies both freedom of choice and freedom of action. Therefore, the action taken cannot be regarded as autonomous when there is no freedom of thinking or options, when there is only one alternative to choose from, or when there is no freedom to act in accordance with the preferred alternative or option. In this instance, we might conclude that denying one of the fundamental ethical principles violates the autonomy of the person who wishes to carry out euthanasia but is unable to do so due to state intervention.
The concept of dignity serves as the foundation for the right to euthanasia. The notion of human nature’s dignity is linked with respect for the individual’s autonomy, acknowledging that the human being is a valuable commodity and not just a tool for advancing the objectives of businesses, industries, or health care experts. The recognition of the ethical-social plurality that is a feature of our time is a prerequisite for respecting the independent individual. According to Kant, the autonomy principle continues to be viewed as “the ground of the human dignity and of every rational nature.” To oppose euthanasia is to take away a person’s dignity. Denying the right to freedom of choice and action is in conflict with the idea of human dignity if dignity is based on autonomy.
Euthanasia can also be justified in Nietzsche for various grounds: The morality of doctors: The sick person is a social parasite. Living longer is improper in several states. After the purpose of life and the right to life have been gone, continuing to vegetate in spineless dependence on doctors and schemes ought to inspire terrible disdain in society. To proudly pass away when one can no longer live proudly. Death chosen voluntarily and at the appropriate time. In his more extreme view, total medical dependence not only results in the loss of the right to life, but also the loss of the meaning of life, and euthanasia is a method of emancipation from this predicament. Euthanasia has unquestionable benefits, but some problems cannot be ignored.
The safeguarding of human dignity is another major point of contention with this issue. Through euthanasia, the source of the anguish is taken away. Euthanasia is defined by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as any action or inaction that, by its very nature or aim, results in death and the cessation of all suffering.
As a result, it is clear that euthanasia involves both the elimination of the pain-bearer and the elimination of the pain. The direct and intentional killing of the patient is what euthanasia is blamed for, not the alleviation of agony. “Good intentions do not necessarily lead to good results,” as Martin puts it. When a patient’s life is intentionally taken away through a doctor, this includes both his capacity for feeling carried and any existential possibilities.
Euthanasia can also be seen as inherently contradictory, as Kant puts it: One person, through a series of evils that have accumulated to the point of hopelessness, feels tired of life but is still sufficiently in possession of his reason to be able to question whether it might be contrary to the duty to himself to take his own life. He now tests whether the guiding principle of his behaviour could turn into a fundamental principle of nature. But he lives by the saying, “From self-love, I make it my principle to shorten my life when by longer term it threatens more ill than it promises agreeableness” since he loves himself.
The question is whether this self-love principle might turn into a fundamental rule of nature. Then, however, one quickly realizes that a nature whose law it was to destroy life through the same feeling whose purpose it is to impel the advancement of life would be in contradiction with itself and thus could not exist as nature; as a result, that maxim could not possibly obtain as a universal law of nature, and thus, it completely contradicts the supreme principle of all duty.
If you define health solely as the absence of sickness, it makes sense that a chronic patient who is still lucid, in pain, and who doesn’t pose a significant risk to their life would request euthanasia. For these chronic patients, however, there are some opportunities when they realize that health also includes states of wellbeing in the physical, mental, social, and spiritual domains. By providing hygienic surroundings, comfort in spotless rooms with cheery colours, and a comfortable temperature, these patients’ quality of life increases noticeably.
It is crucial to support mental health in order to help patients find alternatives for shortening their lives. This will help both the patient and the patient’s family. Resuming social interactions and caring for spiritual well-being are key components of their overall health enhancement. Martin believes that euthanasia is inappropriate from an ethical standpoint when life is not immediately in danger since saving a life is more important than investing in death. Similar circumstances can be applied to terminal patients, who should seek comfort and pain relief while also taking care of their emotional, social, and spiritual well-being. This will enable them to wait for their demise.