Euthanasia

There are many arguments for euthanasia. One of the best arguments is that there are persons who want euthanasia, and that we are bound to respect their wishes. Even though we are not obliged to respect all requests for euthanasia, there are some requests we should respect. In cases of voluntary euthanasia where there is consent from the patient and it is verified by more than one doctor that the patient is terminally ill, then society should respect the patient's wishes and grant them access to end his or her own life. Its permissibility can be argued on the following two fronts: rationality and the rights of the patient.

Is voluntary euthanasia, in cases where there is consent from the patient morally permissible? Some argue that it is not permissible based on the idea of rationality. The patient is not of a sound, rational mind to make a decision regarding his life because he is under a great deal of pain, suffering, and emotional stress. Others may even argue that it is not even rational to want death, for the value of life is much more important. But I think these people are mistaken. First, no one is more clear-headed about the consequences or knows more about the patient's experience than the patient himself. It is subjective; the degree of deteriorating physical life and the value of one's remaining life. Thus, only the patient could be in the position to decide if he feels death to be worse or if there are worse things than death, such as long-term pain, confusion, and loss of dignity, followed by death. An example was given by the Zygmaniak case. George Zygmaniak was injured in a motorcycle accident in 1973, paralyzing him from the neck down and putting him in terrible pain. George begged his brother to kill him. When his brother asked him if he should "end [his] pain" George was able to nod affirmatively before his brother shot him. George was the only one to be in the position of pain and physical loss of his body. He judged that life was not worth living and was able to nod in consent to his death. (Singer, 1993). Yes, one could argue that there is no fixed proof that he was of a rational, sound mind. But it can also be said that he was not under medication which would make him incompetent. The Dax case further proves this point. In 1973 Donald "Dax" Cowart was injured in a propane gas explosion, burning 68% of his body. Blind and disfigured, he received medical treatment for a year. From day one he demanded returning home to die. When interviewed by a psychiatrist, he was deemed competent, telling a compelling story of reasons for desiring death. His caregivers on the other hand still refused to respect his wishes. Yet 25 years after the accident, happy and married, Dax still adamantly believes that he should have been allowed to die. Dax's story supports patients' rationality because Dax's desire for death remained constant; he desired euthanasia while suffering, and even now when he is happy and married, he still believes that he should have been allowed to die. Some argue that desiring death is not rational since life always has a higher value. A utilitarian, on the other hand would claim that attempting to stay alive when death cannot be avoided for long serves no purpose. Life is about enjoying your surroundings and engaging in the world around you, not about pain, suffering, and hospital beds. What is the significance of spending your life fighting death? No one benefits from the patient dying slowly; the family goes through the pain of the slow death while the medical bill slowly increases. In a way, it could even be looked as irrational to continue wanting to live in order to perpetuate pain. There is always a possibility that there may be a miraculous recovery or the discovery of a treatment. But assuming that the patient has been confirmed with a desperately ill condition, this probability is close to zero. Life is also about probabilities, but we usually pick the more probable one. Why should one pick the least probable outcome in hopes of its success?

Another central argument for voluntary euthanasia is that if one has the right to life, it's within the person's right to desire death, and decide his "continued existence" (Singer, 1993). However, those opposing voluntary euthanasia argue that even if it's within a person's right to desire death, there are limits to a person's autonomy. The