Physician Assisted Suicide and Active Euthanasia

Physician-Assisted Suicide, And Active Euthanasia

In Favor of the Moral Permissibility of Active Physician-Assisted Suicide

According to Mappes and DeGrazia, Brock's support for voluntary active euthanasia is largely based on two ethical values that he regards fundamental (402). The values in this case include the well-being of an individual and individual autonomy or self-determination. Self-determination according to Brock has got to do with letting individuals chart their own destiny, that is, allowing individuals to make decisions for themselves (Mappes and DeGrazia 402). In Brock's opinion, the relevance of self-determination cannot be overstated. Self-determination allows an individual to become the author of his or her own destiny. However, for a person to be able to make sound decisions for himself, such an individual must possess either the competence or the capacity to make the decision in question. Thus in the opinion of Brock, euthanasia and its very scope could be limited in those instances where individuals lack either the competence or capacity to make sound decisions (Mappes and DeGrazia 402). When it comes to decisions at the time of death, Brock points out that while some are able to cope with disabilities and the impairments such disabilities bring along i.e. loss of dignity, others view any sort of adjustment as a burden. For those in the latter category, life may suddenly stop making sense to them. In such a case, Brooks is convinced that the need to ensure that an individual near death experiences minimum suffering, has his or her dignity maintained and is remembered as he or she would wish to be remembered by far outweighs the need to extend the life of such an individual (Mappes and DeGrazia 402).

An individual's well-being is the other value put forward by Brock in support of euthanasia. There are times when the life of a patient ceases to be of any significant benefit to him or her. This according to Brock could happen when the patient is critically ill, in which case the state of such a patient could be debilitated and compromised (Mappes and DeGrazia 402). In such a scenario, the request for euthanasia should be honored. It is however important to note that the decision by a patient to seek euthanasia may not be honored in some instances. This is more so the case in those instances where the patient is suffering from clinical depression - condition that affects the competency of the decisions he or she makes.

It is however important to note that in the opinion of Brook, physicians must not be compelled by patients to go against their own values -- whether professional or moral (Mappes and DeGrazia 402). A request for euthanasia should be transferred to another doctor in those instances where such a request conflicts with either the professional or moral responsibility of that doctor to whom the request was originally made (Mappes and DeGrazia 403).

Dissenting Views

According to Mappes and DeGrazia, Callahan is convinced that a clear distinction exists between allowing to die and killing (399). One of the perspectives that Callahan uses to defend his assertion is the medical view. According to Callahan, physicians have a historical role to use the knowledge they possess to comfort and/or cure patients as opposed to bringing about their death (Mappes and DeGrazia 401). Thus in seeking to exercise that role, physicians must not do anything that can prematurely end the life of a patient. Callahan's assertion in this case conflicts with one of Brock's proposals in regard to when euthanasia should be allowed. In the opinion of Brock, as far as the well-being of an individual is concerned, a patient should be granted his or her request for euthanasia if such a patient's life becomes unbearable as a result of a critical illness (Mappes and DeGrazia 402). For instance, for some critically ill patients, further treatment may cease to make sense. This is more so the case in those instances where an illness is accompanied by a great deal of pain. Callahan is however adamant that even in such a case, the doctor's role should be limited to keeping such a patient comfortable.

A Response to the Objection