Feminine Ethics

Feminist Ethics Many arguments have in the past been presented in support of, and against euthanasia -- with each point-of-view presenting seemingly valid arguments in support of either position. It is important to note that active euthanasia is not permitted in any of the states of the U.S. In basic terms, active euthanasia has got to do with "using certain death-causing means to bring about or cause the death of a person" (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 82).

Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, as the author further points out, "refers to withholding or withdrawing certain treatment and letting a patient die" (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 81). The latter case of euthanasia is permitted in most states of the U.S. Regarding baby John Doe's case, the most viable alternative would seem to be intentionally ending his life so as to ensure that he does not live an extremely difficult life due to his lack of bladder and bowel control.

Discussion It is important to note, from the onset, that "active euthanasia is not legal or permissible in the United States" (DeWit and O'Neill, 2013, p. 200). With regard to baby John Doe, therefore, we are left with only two options: to end his life via the application of passive euthanasia or to let him live. Letting him live presents obvious challenges, including, but not limited to, the possibility of a really constrained and challenging life.

Applying euthanasia, passive euthanasia that is, would involve preventing doctors from inserting the shunt designed to drain fluid from the baby's head as well as from repairing the spinal opening. It should, however, be noted that even after this is done, baby John Doe has chances, although slim, of surviving. If he did survive, his life would be worse off than if the proposed procedures had been conducted.

For these and other reasons that I will highlight below, passive euthanasia ought not to be taken into consideration as a viable alternative. To begin with, with regard to baby John Doe's condition, there is no telling for sure that doctors won't find a cure or treatment of sorts for the condition in the future - in baby John Does lifetime. Such kind of treatment would make the life of baby John Doe more bearable, effectively defeating the need to end his life at this point in time.

Essentially, with babies like John Doe still out there, doctors would find reason to continue exploring treatment options with the hope of ending the suffering of those born with the condition. Next, to some extent, ending the life of baby John Doe at this point, through an act of omission, would be in contravention of one of the key tenets of medical ethics. A medical practitioner, as per the International Code of Medical Ethics has an "obligation to preserve human life" (World Medical Association, 1983).

It is not difficult to see why doctors that fail to put in place the shunt to prevent the accumulation of fluid in the brain would be abandoning this very basic obligation. It is also easy to see why failing to repair the spinal opening would amount to hastening the death of baby John Doe -- an undertaking or action that cannot be reconciled with the duty to preserve life. Third, there is also the argument that everybody has the right to life. The right to life, as MacKinnon (2012, p.

82) observes, has got to do with "the right not to be killed." By preventing the necessary interventions from being undertaken so as to save baby John Doe's life, Sarah and Mike would be violating an independent entity's basic right. It is, however, important to note that in some cases, it has been argued that it is possible for individuals to waiver this basic right, thereby cancelling other people's duty not to kill (Wennberg, 1989, p. 58).

This is particularly the case when an individual commits murder, whereby it becomes permissible for the courts to prescribe the punishment of death. Baby John Doe has not waived his right to live. Denying him the chance to life just because of a medical condition would be immoral and inappropriate. There is also the concept of autonomy. In basic terms, autonomy has got to do with "the right of a rational person to self-rule and to generate personal decisions independently" (Butts and Rich, 2005, p. 12).

The application of this concept in this scenario would mean that.