This paper presents a philosophical and legal argument against euthanasia in all its forms, including involuntary killing, physician-assisted suicide, mercy killing, and proxy decision-making for incapacitated individuals. Drawing on Judeo-Christian ethics, U.S. constitutional law, and historical examples such as the Nazi euthanasia program, the paper argues that the potential for abuse, coercion, and error makes even well-intentioned assisted dying morally impermissible. The sole recognized exception is the mentally competent individual's constitutional right to refuse medical treatment — a right that cannot ethically be extended to third-party proxies.
Euthanasia refers to several different types of acts that purposely terminate the life of another. It includes involuntary forced killing, such as that practiced by the Nazis; aggressive voluntary physician-assisted suicide; non-aggressive withdrawal of medical support; and "mercy killing," or assistance in the suicide of a loved one suffering from an incurable disease (Garner 2001).
All forms of involuntary euthanasia are wrong because the killing of another is, by definition, murder. Judeo-Christian religious beliefs prohibit both suicide and, by extension, assisted suicide, as do the laws of the United States. In principle, the only possible exceptions are those where a person of sound mind refuses medical treatment under the "penumbra" of implied privacy rights under the U.S. Constitution (Dershowitz 2002). In those situations, it is not actually euthanasia, since a personal refusal of medical treatment does not involve the actions of another person. Nor is the mentally competent refusal of medical care defined as suicide, because modern interpretation of constitutional rights includes the right to refuse personal medical care in general (Abrams 1985).
During the 1930s, the Nazis instituted a secret program of involuntary euthanasia, killing both children who showed signs of mental retardation and other disabilities, as well as institutionalized adults deemed incapable of a "worthwhile" life (Breitman 1998).
Proponents of voluntary euthanasia suggest that the distinction between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia justifies the former. The problem, however, is that the lines between them are susceptible to becoming blurred, particularly in the case of those suffering from diminished mental capacity. Likewise, the complexity of modern medicine requires patients to rely heavily on information supplied by physicians. Where medical euthanasia is permitted, physicians may impose their own beliefs and values in the way they characterize medical situations and prognoses. One noteworthy example is Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who was released after his incarceration for assisted suicide (Martindale 2007).
For the same reasons, euthanasia in the form of assisted suicide by non-physicians — such as mercy killing by family members — is also impermissible, because family members have the same capacity to impose their own beliefs on their loved ones.
Allowing assisted suicide could provide the opportunity for family members to take advantage of an ailing relative for personal gain, particularly in the case of the elderly and those suffering from dementia or clinical depression.
Euthanasia supporters point out that evidence suggests suicide and euthanasia in the form of assisted suicide among the elderly is already widely under-reported as a cause of death (Humphry 2002), and that there is no justification for prolonging life once a person reaches the point where life is no longer worth living from his or her own perspective. However, the fact that one's outlook on life is susceptible to the influence of relationships with others, temporary depression, and poor judgment means that permitting even self-initiated euthanasia is tantamount to allowing suicide and murder in those cases.
"Constitutional exception for competent self-refusal"
"Why proxies cannot extend the refusal right"
Euthanasia, whether voluntary or involuntary or genuinely intended as mercy killing, is never justified. Whereas voluntary euthanasia may be benevolently motivated, the potential for abuse and mistake requires that society err on the side of caution to guard against both. In medical settings, patients and their families are too susceptible to suggestion and too deferential to physicians to permit either doctor-assisted or passive euthanasia, because physicians may impose their own fundamental beliefs on their patients. Even where individual rights allow a person to refuse life-saving treatment, permitting others to express those rights by proxy is simply a passive form of euthanasia and must therefore be prohibited along with all of its other possible forms.
You’re 63% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.