Philosophy ASSIGNMENT
Name : Richa Giri
Roll
no : 19/BAP/187
Department
: B.A. Program
Euthanasia
Introduction
There Is an old age thinking that only two things in life are certain – death and taxes. While the
morality of the latter would be an interesting topic itself. it is the morality of an issue connected
to the former that draws the focus of this assignment. Sometimes we consider the ethical
issues surrounding euthanasia sometimes labelled as mercy killing. The etymology of
euthanasia helps to reveal the meaning of the term. Like most upstanding and respectable
philosophical term, euthanasia has deep roots in ancient Greek language; it is based on the
combination of the terms “ eu" meaning well and “thaotos" meaning death. Euthanasia is just
the act of seeking to provide a good death for a person who otherwise might be faced with a
much more unpleasant death - hence the term mercy killing.
Meaning
Euthanasia is derived from the Greek word which simply means “a gentle an easy death”. Used
in that wide sense one hopes everyone is in favour of euthanasia: who wants to endure, or
wants to endure protracted and painful death? Obviously however, campaigners for the
decriminalisation of euthanasia are not using the word in this uncontroversial sense. They are
not simply supporting the expansion of Hospices and improvements in palliative care. They are
rather arguing that doctors should in certain circumstances be allowed to endure an easy death
not just by killing but by killing the patient. Given the variety of ways in the word euthanasia is
used but other than pretend that there is one universally accepted meaning. It seems sensible
to set out the three different ways in which the world is often used, begin narrowest. All the
three definitions share certain features, they argued that euthanasia involves decision which
have the effect of shortening life. They also agreed that it is limited to the medical context:
“euthanasia involves patients” life being shortened by doctors and not say by relatives-
moreover all three concur that characteristic of euthanasia is the belief that would benefit the
patient in suffering gravely from a terminal or incapacity illness or because the patient
condition is tough to be “an indignity”. without this third feature, there would be nothing to
distinguish euthanasia from cold blooded murder for selfish motives. In short, all the three
definitions concur that euthanasia involves doctors making decisions which have the effect
shortening of patients life and that these decisions are raised on the belief that the patient
would be better off death.
Euthanasia
Euthanasia, “ good death” has been condoned and can condemned by many different cultures
and religions over the centuries. For instance the early Christian Church were condemned all
killing, including euthanasia, suicide, infanticide common capital punishment and killing during
wartime. The church later changed its position on war and capital punishment. In 1516 Sir
Thomas More wrote utopia in which he challenged the church teaching and argued that
euthanasia should be allowed. then many clergy doctors and other professionals and
laypersons openly support passive euthanasia the withholding of extraordinary means to
sustain the life of terminal patient. at the same time, a media circus has arising to cover the
trials or Michigan doctors aided in the suicide of terminally Illinois patients.
Types of euthanasia
Different practices fall under the label “euthanasia.” Here are some distinctions demarcating
different versions.
Active euthanasia: killing a patient by active means, for example, injecting a patient with a
lethal dose of a drug. Sometimes called “aggressive” euthanasia.
Passive euthanasia: intentionally letting a patient die by withholding artificial life support such
as a ventilator or feeding tube. Some ethicists distinguish between withholding life support
and withdrawing life support (the patient is on life support but then removed from it).
Voluntary euthanasia: with the consent of the patient.
Involuntary euthanasia: without the consent of the patient, for example, if the patient is
unconscious and his or her wishes are unknown.. Some ethicists distinguish between
“involuntary” (against the patient’s wishes) and “nonvoluntary” (without the patient’s consent
but wishes are unknown) forms.
Self-administered euthanasia: the patient administers the means of death.
Other-administered euthanasia: a person other than the patient administers the means of
death.
Assisted: the patient administers the means of death but with the assistance of another person,
such as a physician.
There are many possible combinations of the above types, and many types of euthanasia are
morally controversial. Some types of euthanasia, such as assisted voluntary forms, are legal in
some countries.
Mercy-killing: The term “mercy-killing” usually refers to active, involuntary or nonvoluntary,
other-administered euthanasia. In other words, someone kills a patient without their explicit
consent to end the patient’s suffering. Some ethicists think that
Physician-assisted suicide: The phrase “physician-assisted suicide” refers to active, voluntary,
assisted euthanasia where a physician assists the patient. A physician provides the patient with
a means, such as sufficient medication, for the patient to kill him or herself.
Some instances of euthanasia are relatively uncontroversial. Killing a patient against their will
(involuntary, aggressive/active, other-administered), for instance, is almost universally
condemned. During the late 1930’s and early 1940’s, in Germany, Adolf Hitler carried out a
program to exterminate children with disabilities (with or without their parent’s permission)
under the guise of improving the Aryan “race” and reducing costs to society. Everyone now
thinks this kind of euthanasia in the service of a eugenics program was clearly morally wrong.
Some conceptual distinctions
The term active and passive are often combined with the terms voluntary and non voluntary
euthanasia to give four possible conditions. Passive euthanasia is typically defined as an act of
omission in case where a terminally kill or seriously injured patient dies due to disease or injury.
Treatment is with held or discontinued and the patient is allowed to die. Active euthanasia
involves an act of commission, in which a lethal injection of killing the patient. Philosophers
such as Beauchamp, Callahan and Rachels disagree about the moral significance of the
distinction between letting die and killing.
Voluntary euthanasia includes cases in which a competent patient, verbally or in a living will,
asks or gives informed consent to withhold treatment. In non voluntary euthanasia, decisions
are made by others on the behalf of the patient. The distinction between voluntary and non
voluntary is less controversial than the active and passive issue. Cases involving self
administered lethal doses of drugs via suicide machines cloud this issue even further.
Mentioned below are the arguments for and against move controversial topics of voluntary
active euthanasia.
Argument for voluntary active euthanasia
The Mercy argument :
The most common and easily understood argument for euthanasia is what Rachels and others
call the argument from mercy. For terminal patients who suffer intolerable chronic pain,
euthanasia is justified on compassionate grounds surely humans deserve at least the same
compassion we show towards pets and other animals who suffer great pain.
The Golden argument
Just as you wish to put out of mercy, you should allow others the same option..
The autonomy or right to die argument
Another popular argument for euthanasia is based on the principle that competent
person has the right not only to refuse medical treatments including those that keep a
terminal or seriously injured person alive, but to even request assistance to end his or
her life.
Arguments against voluntary active euthanasia
Three theological arguments many ethical systems hold that killing, except insert in
case, is wrong, Rachels cites three common arguments
1. “Thou shalt not kill”. Some school says that move accurate transition of the 6th
commandment is thou shall not murder, and this translation is used to justify
killing in self defence. The counter argument is that euthanasia can be justified
and is not murder contrary to common interpretation.
2. God has dominion over life. simply stated, God created us and only God can
decide whether and when a person should live or die. We should not play God is
a common religious argument.
3. Suffering is part of gods plan. God has ordained our suffering as a part of his
plan, it is a part of parcel of life. to put an end to suffering via mercy killing is to
interfere with gods plan. Critics of this argument pointed out that we do
interfere with gods plan when we use drugs to reduce or relieve pain.
The miraculous recovery or cure argument
Physicians cannot always accurately predict that there is no hope for recovery. Some helpless
cases have in fact recovered and unknown killers may be just around the corner. Euthanasia
would deprive the patient of the chance to live.
The fact that physicians have sometimes made mistake does not mean that they can never
again say with a higher degree of certainty that a patient will never recover. While in some
cases there may be a chance to timely promising results from research, the physician should
not offer false hope. However, extreme care should be taken before reaching the conclusion of
hopelessness.
EUTHANASIA IN INDIA
Indian history of the 19th century too accounts for some instances of euthanasia. Veer Savarkar
and Vinoba Bhave are the two well-known examples who chose to end their lives by refusing to
take nutrition. Mahatma Gandhi was also known to have supported the idea of wilful death. He
got his name ‘Mahatma Gandhi’ only because of his deeds. He preached ahimsa (non-violence)
throughout his life, and supported fasting as purification of the soul and saw no wrong in
ending once life for a good cause. Infact, he himself practiced fasting onto death as a political
tool unless his demands were met.
India has seen a considerable debate on the subject. The opening note regarding euthanasia
was made by the Law Commission of India’s Report No. 42 in 1971, which for the first-time
recommended deletion of Section 309 of the Penal Code, 1860. Further, the Supreme Court
in Rathinam v. Union of India held that Section 309 IPC is violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The Court termed the said section as cruel and irrational, resulting in
punishing a person again, who has already suffered agony and would be undergoing ignominy
because of his failure to commit suicide. Further, an act of suicide cannot be said to be against
religion, morality or public policy, and an act of attempted suicide has no baneful effect on
society, and that it does not cause any harm to others, because of which States’ interference
with the personal liberty of the persons concerned is unwarranted.
15. However, the above judgment was overruled by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, wherein it was held that “right to life” is inherently inconsistent
with the “right to die” as is “death” with “life”. In furtherance, the right to life, which includes
the right to live with human dignity, would mean the existence of such a right up to the natural
end of life. It may further include “death with dignity” but such existence should not be
confused with unnatural extinction of life curtailing natural span of life. In addition of the
above, the constitutionality of Section 309 IPC, which makes “attempt to suicide” an offence,
was upheld, overruling the judgment in Rathinam case.
After about a decade, the Law Commission of India in 2006 came up with the
196th Report[6] on terminally ill patients, which recommended legalising ‘passive euthanasia’ in
a very strict and controlled mechanism. The Report made it clear that euthanasia and physician-
assisted suicide shall remain illegal, and the Report only dealt with the protection of the
patients in cases where the terminally ill patient is in a permanent vegetative state with no
chance of recovery. In such a case, the patient voluntarily by oral or written request, can seek
for the removal of support system, thereby hastening his death, albeit subject to certain
safeguards. The doctors attending to such a patient have the duty to inform the patient
completely of his state and future prospects and further, shall forcefully keep the patient on life
support against his will. This request as per the Report is made as a direction of the terminally ill
patient which is binding on the doctor, and protection from Section 306 IPC is available to the
doctor who acts under such instructions of the patient. Further, in cases of incompetent patient
a mandatory clearance from the High Court shall be taken by the next friend to give effect to
the withdrawal of life support.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the only humane choice is to allow individuals who are suffering to choose to end
their suffering. Further, the discrepancies in the laws as they exist and how they are being
enforced have led to uncertainty. This uncertainty leaves the doctors, their patients and
patient's loved ones unprotected. If we do not address these issues openly and head-on, we will
have continued uncertainty and unregulated practice of euthanasia or assisted suicide with the
fear of prosecution hanging over the heads of all concerned.
The goals of the medical profession should continue to remain one of saving lives but this
should not be at the expense of compassion and a terminally ill individual's right to choose to
end his or her life and die with dignity.
Reference
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia
https://www.britannica.com/topic/euthanasia
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-euthanasia
https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/497377
Euthanasia by Timothy Dad
Arguing Euthanasia by Jonathan Morcno
