Is euthanasia ethically correct?
Euthanasia is the down fall to rational philosophy. Pain and
death are the ultimate experiences in empirical philosophy and yet rational
philosophy cannot handle let alone guide us through this morally fraught
problem in philosophy.
The ethical issue is quite straight forward: our biological
instinct repulses us against the killing of kin and kith and yet euthanasia is
a rational justification to do what we, by nature, would find difficult to
accept. And our justification to bridge this philosophical ravine is that other
empirical phenomenon, pain. Pain distresses us and we are equally distressed by
the experience of pain and suffering of other people. Pain in a huge motivator.
Historically, we dealt with death and killing as only
justifiable in self defence, although some cultures do not necessarily put a
high value on life. Inevitably this mind set has led to human sacrifice and
capital punishment at one extreme and political abuse, if not outright institutionalised
criminality, on the other.
It is now accepted that the austerity policies of the
Conservative government in the UK has directly caused the death of 30,000
(2015: Royal Society of Medicine) although in 2017 The Independent wrote about
“economic murder” to have reached some 120,000 deaths (1). But compare this
with the following quote from the NHS website: The law: Both euthanasia and
assisted suicide are illegal under English law (2). (Although, this applies to
the whole UK).
So what is different about euthanasia that makes it criminal
yet the state, it seems, can murder people at will? In the realm of political
philosophy we are as individuals subjects or citizens of the sate meaning that
we are not free to decide on the fate of peers in the state. Politically,
individuals do not have the authority or the competence to take the life others
without the defence of self defence. So it is not just biological repulsion
that stops us from euthanasia but also lack of political competence to do so.
We now find ourselves in a three horned problem: (1) our
revulsion at killing our friends and relatives, (2) our natural distress of
pain and (3) our political incompetence to decide when to take away the life of
someone else. On the biological level we are moved by the quality and quantity
of life of those close to us. On the political level we are rule takers and not
rule makers. So why should euthanasia be an ethical issue for us: when our free
will intentions are managed by biology and our freedom to act is curtailed by
political coercion?
We can escape this impasse not necessarily by questioning
the morality and ethics of euthanasia but rather by questioning the practicality
of euthanasia. In particular instead of asking why or why not euthanasia we can
ask: when is it possible to perform euthanasia?
What we cannot accept is the frivolous attitude of the state
towards life, and in particular the exercise of power without accounting for
its exercise. In other words, euthanasia is not a matter of ethics but a matter
of empirical value judgement. And empirical value judgements can only be
justifiably carried out with empirical evidence and facts available and
understood.
Today we know that medical research, especially in
neurology, can establish whether patients in a coma can be aware of their
surroundings and might even be conscious anyway; behaviourism is not the best
idea philosophers have ever had. Thus coma patients today should immediately be
excluded from being possible candidates of euthanasia. Anything else would be
criminal mischief making at the very least.
This leaves us with managing pain. We tend to accept that
the management of pain is a medical issue and we even impose our moral dilemmas
on the shoulders of doctors and health care workers. But this is really a
tunnel vision form of conducting moral philosophy. Basically, if the killing of
people is the sole domain of the state then it beholds the state to manage the
causes where the death is a real option in the event when pain cannot be
managed. And just in case people ask, I see no difference between an
intentional act to kill and an intentional inaction to let die.
This means that the state has the moral duty to provide
health carers with tools and medicines to manage patients to the point when
pain ceases to be a cause for euthanasia. But even before we arrive at the
point of unmanageable pain the state has to make sure that all possible means
to cure or manage diseases are available to all before pain becomes an issue.
This can only mean universal health care for all on the
basis that diseases and pain are universal to all human beings, meaning these
are what every human being can experience and be affected with. But there is a
political duty to provide universal health care, basically since the state
reserves the right and competence to kill citizens the state ought to prevent
unnecessary killing or possible causes that lead to unnecessary killing.
Hence, the moral dilemma is not whether euthanasia is
morally correct, but rather: when is it morally correct for the state to kill
citizens? Hence, when is it morally correct for the state to empower people to
perform euthanasia? The state might have the political authority to kill
citizens, but it does not have the ethical authority to determine what is
ethically correct. What is ethically correct is dependent on the universal
positive benefits for everyone; no utilitarianism here either. After all
ethical principles can only have universal authority if they apply universally.
And by universally we can only mean all human beings alive at any given time
when a moral decision has to be made.
Justifiably some might object and say that this approach
does not help patients today who are suffering untold pain now. This is true,
but then again we are neither health carers nor politicians, and as
philosophers we have no more authority than anyone else to kill others. But
there are solutions. This first is for independent courts of law to guide and
help affected people come to an equitable solution. This means people should
have unfettered and immediate access to courts of law.
There should also be a real supervision of the government
independent of those in charge of running the government. But there is nothing new
here; at the very least ethics is also about accountability. Hence the issue is
not really whether euthanasia is ethically correct but rather can humanity
arrive at the correct ethics to guide us with euthanasia?
Best Lawrence
(1) These
figures might even be way out of date.
Landmark study links Tory austerity to
120,000 deaths
(2) Euthanasia
and assisted suicide
#euthanasia #ethics #pain #death #dying #state #healthcare
© Lawrence JC Baron 2019
No comments:
Post a Comment