Ethical Position on Euthanasia Suicide

Ethical Position on Euthanasia

Suicide is a taboo in almost every human culture and it violates the teachings of all of the major Western religions practiced in the United States. On the other hand, there appear to be situations and circumstances were it is perfectly understandable why a person would prefer to die than to continue living. Certainly, there are extremely difficult decisions involved and not every case is necessarily easy to resolve ethically. However, it is possible to establish ethical principles by considering some of the most extreme cases before worrying about the more difficult cases.

Euthanasia to Escape Prolonged Suffering

Perhaps the easiest scenario to understand is the case of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). If allowed to progress, the disease results in slow agonizing death from gradual suffocation. If a patient who is already facing certain death (not to mention, after already losing all abilities to move and communicate) would prefer to die painlessly from a lethal injection, that would be perfectly understandable. In my opinion, Dr. Kevorkian is not a criminal but a hero for providing this service to patients in this situation. Other cases where euthanasia is equally understandable would include virtually any incurable fatal medical condition that causes severe pain that is impossible to alleviate. If a person is too opposed to suicide under any circumstances to take that escape even from the worst pain, that is, of course, his or her prerogative. But the point is that is equally within a person's right to make that decision for himself or herself if death is preferable to continued suffering. Nobody (including the government) should have the authority to override that highly personal and private decision.

The Religious Objection to Euthanasia

In this country, one of the principal arguments against euthanasia is that Judeo-Christian religious traditions do not allow it. That is a perfectly valid reason not to engage in the practice, at least in the case of any person who makes that decision because of his or her religious beliefs and values. However, the very same concept of religious freedom means that no person should ever have his or her rights defined against his or her will by the religious beliefs and values of other people. In this country, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits the state from imposing religion on any individual; yet that is exactly the situation to the extent that legislators ever oppose euthanasia on "religious" grounds. Incidentally, the exact same principle applies to abortion to the degree that the issue involves religious beliefs about when human life "begins."

Conclusion