The Idea of Death within Morality

Death within Morality

Medical professionals are guided by a set of moral/ethical standards, which are centered on the idea of doing no harm. However, the medical world is faced with questions and controversies surrounding the issue of death. Generally, life and death are complex subjects or issues in the field of medical practice. There are controversies of whether keeping someone alive can actually be harmful and whether death can actually be a more ethical choice than life. These debates are fueled by the view that living long, happy lives seem to be the best thing. For medical professionals, determining when to keep someone alive or let them die remains debatable. Medical professionals face this dilemma given that the heart and function of philosophy is to prepare humans to die (Wassmer, p.759). While death is at the center of the human experience, death within morality is an impossibility.

Overview of the Issue

As previously indicated, life and death are two difficult subjects that have attracted the attention of medical professionals as well as philosophers. Life and death decisions are primarily moral issues, which are at the core of ethical theories. According to Wassmer, philosophers have always been interested in public discourse on death, particularly its implications on the deceased and the living (p.759). Philosophers’ interests in discussions on death are fueled by the idea that the heart and function of this field is to prepare humans for death. When considering death, philosophers try to apply mysticism or magic. From a philosophical perspective, discussions and views of death are primarily contradictory. On one hand, many people attempt to put death out of their daily thoughts or consciousness. On the other hand, some people are constantly preoccupied with death, which is considered a normal human experience. This implies that death is viewed as larger than life, on one hand, and life is viewed as larger than death on another hand.

Philosophical arguments and debates on death are based on the concern of whether death annihilates life altogether or is larger than life (Kokosalakis, p.402). The contradictory views have contributed to the emergence of problematic arguments on the concept of death within an existential or philosophical context. Even though death is deemed an ordinary and inevitable human experience, its occurrence generates questions on what it really means in a human existential context. As a result, there are philosophical debates on how humans should cope with death and whether moral justifications negate the existential experience of death. From a philosophical perspective, the issue of death entails dealing with more than the complex question of biological life. Death goes beyond biological life to include the framework of human consciousness, existence, and transcendence.

From a medical perspective, the reality of death primarily means the cessation of all the functions of bodily organs. Kokosalakis notes that human death basically entails the cessation of an individual’s consciousness (p.403). The intersection between medicine and philosophy regarding the concept of death is evident in the idea of human existence and consciousness. Medicine seemingly utilizes philosophical ideas to define the concept of death by looking at it from the lenses of human existence and consciousness. However, medicine includes the idea of biological life as it is the premise for understanding human consciousness and existence. Therefore, medicine considers death in terms of its precedence over the biological perspective of life. Death is not only a threat but also an eliminating force of human life, which is deemed sacred and should be protected.

Medical professionals face dilemmas on the morality of death because of their moral duty to patients including those at the end-of-life stage. The moral duty of medical professionals to patients is centered on the notion of doing no harm. One of the fundamental ethical principles that govern medical practice is the do no harm principle. As a result, when medical professionals face patients who opt for voluntary euthanasia, they face dilemmas regarding the extent to which their actions would violate this ethical principle and whether they are morally justified. This dilemma is exacerbated by the fact that modern medicine considers terminal sicknesses or illnesses as justifications for death since they cannot be cured. Even without voluntary euthanasia, patients with terminal conditions will end up dying. Consequently, the issue of death remains an ethical and controversial problem in the field of medicine that is complicated by the underlying philosophical arguments and moral views.

Arguments in Favor of Death

Eribo & Izibili contend that the concept of death has been the subject of philosophical debates over the years (p.373). The debates surrounding this concept are attributable to the fact that human death has constituted basic mythological problems. Philosophers have found it difficult to navigate through and address these problems in their efforts to clarify questions relating to death. The basic mythological problems that have surrounded philosophical arguments on death have found their way to the field of medicine. As previously noted, medicine and philosophy intersect on the issue of death through the idea of human existence and consciousness. Since the two disciplines incorporate the idea of human existence and consciousness, the debates surrounding the concept of death have become part and parcel of medical practice.

With the advent of medical advances, medical professionals do their best to prolong the life of patients including those with terminal illnesses. However, there are ethical concerns on whether prolonging the lives of patients who are suffering is the right thing to do. This has contributed to debates on the extent to which death within morality can be achieved in the medical field. Can death be achieved within morality, particularly in situations where patients cannot withstand the pain that comes with their deteriorating conditions? Is it ethically right to continue keeping terminally-ill patients constantly sedated with medicine when they have no chance of recovery? Could ending a patient’s life to prevent suffering from getting worse be the more humane and ethical thing to do?

These are some of the questions that have been at the core of philosophical and medical debates on the concept of death. The issue has attracted contradictory viewpoints and arguments between those who view death as morally justifiable in certain scenarios in medical practice and those who oppose it. Proponents have raised various arguments to support their view that death is morally justifiable in certain medical scenarios, particularly when dealing with terminally-ill patients whose conditions are deteriorating.

One of the arguments raised by proponents is the view that it is better for an individual to die instead of suffering every day (Papadimitriou et al., p.25). This view has its origin in Greek tragedians like Aeschylus who believed that it was better for a person to die than to drag out in suffering/anguish for the rest of his/her remaining life. This view contradicts the long-standing ethical perspectives and principles relating to the sanctity of life. The idea that death is better than suffering seems to be influenced by the views of Socrates, one of the renowned philosophers whose work has influenced the field of medicine. Socrates defined the concept of death as release to the world of the gods (Eribo & Izibili, p.373). Based on Socrates’ views, death is not necessarily an evil thing as many people think and profess. Therefore, death should be viewed as a means of migrating to the world of the gods. Socrates’ position on death was supported by Lucretius who argued that since death is an inevitable human experience, it should not trouble the living and the dead. For the living, death is yet to happen and for the dead, they no longer exist.

These philosophical views have seemingly influenced the position that it is better for an individual to die instead of suffering. Based on this view, medical professionals should practice voluntary euthanasia, particularly for terminally-ill patients or by mutual consent. Therefore, it is right for a medical doctor to get involved in the process of terminating the life of a patient instead of letting them suffer (Gupta, Sharma & Sharma, p.185). From a consequentialist view, there is no difference between letting a person die or killing them since the outcome is similar (Fisher par, 7). Therefore, efforts to distinguish between these two events from a moral perspective would be tantamount to hypocrisy. Additionally, efforts to differentiate the two could have damaging effects in situations where the individual who is better off dead is forced to bear prolonged suffering or undignified existence at others’ expense. These views have been promoted by philosophers and accepted by sections of the medical profession.

Based on the philosophical arguments of Socrates and Lucretius, proponents of death to alleviate suffering also contend that it is different from murder since voluntary euthanasia involves the consent of a patient. While patients do not essentially have the discretion to evaluate a patient’s request for euthanasia, their role in the care delivery process implies they need to make serious judgments on such requests. Such judgments require consideration of the severity and intensity of a patient’s status in light of the intrinsic value and sanctity of life (Gupta, Sharma & Sharma, p.185). Proponents of the idea of death within morality further argue that medically-assisted euthanasia is ethically justifiable since death is guaranteed. Death is an event that no human being can escape despite efforts by the medical profession to prolong life. Therefore, people should not only adjust to the reality of death, but they should also submit themselves to it. To administer any kind of treatment to individuals at the end-of-life stage in effort to prolong their lives would not be beneficial to them and society.

My Position

The idea that death within morality is possible defies ethical and moral principles regarding the sanctity of life. Life is a fundamental human right that should not be taken away. One of the greatest philosophers ever lived, Plato, was against what is currently known as active or voluntary euthanasia. According to Plato, medical professionals who administer any interventions including pharmacological interventions to terminate life should be punished by death (Papadimitriou et al., p.26). While Plato supported the idea that individuals who are unable to live normal lives should not receive medical treatment to prolong their lives, he believed that terminating life is morally unjustifiable and unethical. Physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia is morally/ethically unjustifiable on grounds that it is a violation of the right to life. Every human being has the right to life regardless of their health status or level of suffering. Medical professionals violate their code of ethics by offering voluntary euthanasia as it contradicts what they are supposed to do (Svenaeus, p.335).

Aristotle seemingly advocated for protecting the sanctity of life by his conception of the soul. He treats the soul as an essential irreducible principle of life that cannot be separated from other parts of the body (Kokosalakis, p.406). In this case, all living beings are composite as they have a body, soul, and form that cannot be separated. These three components are inseparable aspects of all living things. Using the view of death as a liberation of the soul to the world of the gods, proponents of this view have argued that death should be considered as an inevitable part of the human experience. In so doing, these proponents forget the inseparable nature of the soul and the body as they constitute human consciousness and existence. To view death as simply a matter of liberation to another world is simplistic and downplays the inseparable nature of essential components of human consciousness and existence. The inseparable nature of the body and the soul implies that life should be regarded and treated as sacred. Safeguarding the sanctity of life recognizes the idea that the body and soul are inseparable as suggested by Aristotle.

The sacred inviolability of human life is one of the major principles underlying medical practice. Therefore, good medicine and good morality require safeguarding the sacredness of life (Wassmer, p.762). The view alleviating pain or suffering is the basis for death within morality seemingly places emphasis on human personality as the premise for life. While personality is an important part of an individual’s uniqueness, it is not the only factor that constitutes life. As noted by Wassmer, human life is not sacred simply because of the essential dignity of personality (p.762). Human life is sacred because of the inseparable nature of the body and the soul. Permitting euthanasia on grounds of suffering or pain would require denying the principle of the sanctity of life. Suffering or pain should not be the premise for determining the value of a human being. Human dignity is based simply on the fact that we are human rather than on health or socioeconomic status. The idea of death within morality devalues or undermines the sanctity of life and is inconsistent with the conventional doctrine of the dignity of every human being regardless of his/her condition.