Sanctity of Life Argument Against Euthanasia Some

Sanctity of Life Argument Against Euthanasia

Some of the most difficult ethical questions of our age concern the definition of life -- when it begins, what it means, when and how it should end. Many of the arguments surrounding these questions concern the right of others to end someone's life. This problem lies at the heart of debates about abortion, capital punishment, and even animal testing. It is particularly relevant to the controversy surrounding euthanasia. Does anyone have the right to end another's life, even to relieve suffering or as a result of the express wish of the sufferer?

Central to the argument against euthanasia is the concept of the "sanctity of innocent human life." James Rachels breaks down the components of this concept in his chapter on the Sanctity of Life. He points out that, while some Eastern philosophies espouse the sanctity of all biological life, more mainstream Western philosophies brush aside plant and animal life and reserve respect only for the sanctity of innocent, human life. Rachels suggests a middle ground by looking at the difference between being alive and having a life. For Rachels, merely being alive does not necessarily imply sanctity of life. Rather, in order for a life to be considered sacred in the sense that it must be protected, that life must be consciously valued by the being living it, and must comprise memories of the past and hopes for the future. It is obvious that human life qualifies in this sense, but so does some animal life. Rachels points out rhesus monkeys and baboons as examples, but the same case could be made for dogs, cats, dolphins, and many others. Rachels suggests that the value and sanctity of a life be determined by the level to which that life is valued and consciously pursued by the one living it.

This view of the sanctity of life may work for arguments about animal testing, for instance. But it becomes very murky when applied to euthanasia. For instance, if someone once was a being that valued its own life and made plans for itself, but an accident altered this person to the point where they no longer qualified as being consciously attached to its life, would euthanasia be an ethical choice? This was the scenario in the famous case of Terri Schiavo, a young woman who entered what appeared to be a Persistent Vegetative State after a coronary attack. Terri had been a bright and lively woman before the episode, but was barely conscious for the 15 years following it. Her husband petitioned to have her feeding tube removed so that she could die peacefully, while her parents fought a vicious legal battle to keep her alive. Both sides rested their cases on the "meaningfulness" of Terri's life -- her husband claiming that she was not aware enough to value or give meaning to her biological life, and her parents arguing that she was. Her parents lost the fight, and Schiavo died 2 weeks after her feeding tube was removed.