The Problem of Human Dignity

The moral issue of euthanasia resolves around the preservation of human dignity in death even to the individual’s last breath. This issue has positive and negative side.

Positive side

-Euthanasia aims to preserve human dignity until death. Not only does one have a duty to preserve life, but one has also the duty to die with dignity.

Negative side

-it declares that euthanasia erodes human dignity.

Different ViewsT. Gary Williams

-considers euthanasia to be morally wrong, firstly because it is an intentional killing and opposes the natural moral law, or the natural inclination to preserve life. (He calls this the argument from nature).

-secondly, euthanasia may be performed for purposes of self-interest or other consequences. Recovery from a serious illness requires that we fight for our life, so the very possibility of euthanasia may keep us from doing just that.(He calls this the argument from self-interest)

-thirdly doctors and other health care professionals may be tempted not to do their best to save the patient; they may resort to euthanasia as an easy way out and simply disregard any other alternatives (He calls this the argument from practical effects)

Different Views

James Rachels

-opts for euthanasia, believing it to be humane insofar as it allows suffering to be brought to a speedy end. In his view, whether killing of any kind is right or wrong depends on the motives and circumstances under which it takes place. If the intentions and situations are of a certain kind, then active euthanasia can be deemed morally right.

For Rachels, both active and passive euthanasia will be judge according to your evil intentions have rendered your decisions or action morally wrong.

Philippa Foot- endorses both active and passive euthanasia, in which the patient explicitly gives consent. In her view everyone has a right to life; hence it is what a person wants counts. For instance, even if he someone would be better off dead, killing him is not justified if he expresses the desire to live. It is only when a person has decided after battling some incurable disease, that life is no longer worth living that both active and passive voluntary euthanasia can be endorsed and regarded as legitimate and justified.

Richard Brandt-applies Ross’ notion of prima facie duty not to injure others in his analysis of the issue at hand. If someone is in irreversible coma, for example and all types of diagnoses have been made to confirm the hopelessness of the case, the patient is considered beyond injury. In such a situation, if instructions have been left for the patient’s life to be ended painlessly, it becomes our prima facie obligation to do so(active and passive euthanasia). Not to follow such a wish would remiss in our prima facie obligation to keep others from further harm or more pain.

If no instructions were left whatsoever, then we may attempt to determine what the patient’s wishes would be from what we know about him/her as a person. However, if the patient has left instructions for hi/her life to be sustained under any circumstances, then we have a prima facie obligation to respect these wishes.