The Ethical Dilemma of Euthanasia, Public Policy Analysis For Ethical Pluralism

1. Ethical Pluralism
“Even though no one ethical theory can be applied in every case, many of the ideas presented do have merit.” (Birsch pp.174) This Statement holds true in the ethical world. Out all theories presented in Ethical Insights: A Brief Introduction, no one theory can solve all ethical problems. Many ethical theories are one-sided based on the person’s opinion who philosophized the theory. The idea of a Pluralistic view of ethics takes each theory and appoints it to a specific ethical dilemma. Birsch’s version of ethical pluralism is concerned with “the assumption that we should attempt to live successfully with all other persons” (Birsch pp.174). Therefore in this paper I will focus on Bircsh’s view of ethical pluralism through the theories of utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, moral rights theory, virtue ethics, and the ethics of care.
Humans develop new and different relationships everyday, from relationships with family, colleague’s and even with a gas station attendant. All of these relationships have different characteristics. One would not treat their family the same way they treat their paperboy. For these different relationships we have to approach with a different ethical view to be able to live successful.
The major problem when dealing with ethical pluralism is the problem of conflicting moral obligations. This is when you need to make a choice between things that are generated by ethical theories. In this case choosing one over the other would not be unethical. An example of this would be spending time with you family or spending time with a friend. However there are also times when making a choice does violate an ethical guideline that is associated with a different group. In other words, the decision to go on a picnic with your friends instead of going to the championship game for your sports team would be viewed as unethical by your teammates because you are letting them down, by neglecting your responsibility to attend the game.
The next important question we have to answer is how to ethically treat people whom we don’t have a relationship with. Everyday we encounter new and different people. Most of the people we see for day to day we have only exchanged a polite hello. However many times in this world people often look down upon one another and don’t treat everyone as a moral equal; thus not living together successfully. When you look at Kantian ethics you are able to see insights into this question. Kantian’s see people as a whole. They are our moral equals and we shall treat them as such. The moral theory also says that individuals are valuable and deserve respect. The basic idea put forth by both moral theory and Kantian ethics is that moral equality is essential. “We need to protect equally all full-status morally significant being” (Birsch p.182-183).
As previously stated one would not treat a family member the same way they would treat a person of a lesser sentimental significance. So in order to live successfully with family and friends one needs to endorse an ethical theory that gives this type of relationship special consideration. The theory that best fits these relationships is the ethics of care. The ethics of care says that we should strive for to care for certain people.
2. Euthanasia
Euthanasia or better known as mercy killing, is a practice of ending a life so as to release an individual life from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering. This term is sometimes used generally to refer to an easy or painless death. Voluntary Euthanasia involves a request by the dying patient or that person’s legal representative. Passive or negative euthanasia involves taking deliberate action to cause a death. There are many pro’s and con’s to Euthanasia, however it can be split into three areas, the religion, medical ethics and peoples own personal reflection on the deep moral issue.
When people are confronted with a moral dilemma, many turn to religion. Euthanasia violates any beliefs, as human which belief in God, Euthanasia is believed to be morally wrong because it is the destruction of life. The church believes that God gives people life for a reason and is the only one allowed taking away a life, for human life is sacred. "As a church we definitely say ‘no’ to assisted suicide because we say ‘yes’ to life-from the first moment of conception until our last natural breath.”
3. The Ethical Dilemma Of Euthanasia
“In all our activities there is an end we seek for its own sake and everything else is a means to this end…Happiness is this ultimate end. It is the end we seek in all that we do.”(Aristotle, De Anima, bk.2, Ch.1.) This belief of Aristotle has validity for the pursuit of happiness. Most people live their life with this conviction; however, when happiness seems to be consumed by pain and suffering, some look for the gratification of their death. Today healthcare facilities are focusing their attention towards patient-centered care. This ultimately leads to patients demanding more independence when it involves their own mortality. Healthcare facilities along with state and federal governments are forced to review the current laws regarding euthanasia. In addition, physicians are compelled to obey the Hippocratic Oath, but are faced with certain cases of terminal illness; their ideals may be required to see alternatives. “I will follow that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous.”
It is unfortunate for some who do not have a pleasant death. It is inevitable that some will not die well. Many feel that euthanasia may seem humane, and it is an act of compassion to end one is suffering. Assisted suicide has often been used interchangeably with euthanasia; however, assisted suicide seems to be a negative connotation. Derek Humphry would rather it be acknowledge as “justifiable suicide”. “Justifiable suicide is a second form of suicide, that is, rational and planned self-deliverance from a painful and hopeless disease, which will shortly end in death.”(Humphry, Derek. “Why I Believe In Voluntary Euthanasia”. 1995).
It may seem to be the right thing to end one from suffering; however, assisted or justifiable suicide is illegal. According to Stephen Jamison, “Suicide ends a life that could continue, and implies irrationality rooted in an identifiable mental condition that may be treatable with proper therapy and medications. An assisted death ends the life of the patient who has gone through the process including physical, social, emotional, and economic factors, whose hope for continued living and cure is gone, and who is faced with the alternative of suffering until inevitable death.” He also goes on to say, “assisted dying is a compassionate act voluntarily requested by a patient who is destined to die and wants to die to relieve his or her suffering.”(Stephen Jamison. “Final Acts of Love: Families, Friends, and Assisted Dying, 1995.)
Beneficence states that the action one takes should benefit others or promote good, while non-maleficence states one has an obligation not to harm others. Healthcare facilities are bound to apply beneficence and non-maleficence within the practice of medicine. In order to fulfill both of these principles, sometimes patients wishes are overridden, thus, creating an ethical dilemma regarding euthanasia. The third principle is autonomy. It states a person has a right to choose what will happen to them. An individual’s capacity for autonomous choice is often challenged by imperfections. These flaws are in the individual’s ability to control his or her desires or actions, such as in cases of mental ill.
In medical ethics there are two problems that deserve special attention: euthanasia and suicide assistance.
• Euthanasia is to know and consciously doing an act which was clearly intended to end the lives of others and also includes the following elements: the subject is a person competent and familiar with an incurable disease voluntarily ask for his life ends; agency with primary interest end the life of the person; and actions carried out with compassion and without personal goals.
• Assistance in suicide is to know and consciously giving someone the knowledge or equipment or both are required to commit suicide, including counseling regarding the lethal dose of drugs, drug adsorb lethal dose, or give it.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide are often regarded as morally, although between them there is much difference in practice and in terms of legal jurisdiction. Euthanasia and suicide with a rock, by definition, must be distinguished from the delay or discontinue medical treatment unwanted, futile or inappropriate or palliative care provision, even if such measures can shorten life. Of course, the doctor will feel reluctant to meet the demand for euthanasia by the patient's actions as an act that is illegal in most countries and banned in most codes of medical ethics. The ban is part of the Hippocratic oath and have been restated by the WMA (World Medical Association) in the Declaration on Euthanasia: "Euthanasia is an act of ending the life of a patient with immediately, it could still not conduct even if the patient himself or his close relatives who request it. It is still not prevent the physician from the obligation to respect the desire of patients to allow a natural death process in the terminal stages of illness."