Essay Sample on Voluntary Euthanasia

There are two types of voluntary euthanasia, active and passive. We will use ethics of care to examine why euthanasia, whether active or passive, is at least sometimes permissible. For example, when a person's continued existence is more dreadful than death. 

In this essay, I will address this matter while considering Phillipa Foot's definition of euthanasia; "An act of euthanasia, whether act or rather omission, is attributed to an agent who opts for the death of another because in his case life seems to be evil rather than a good” (Foot 96). Additionally, I am concentrating on the social repercussions and potential abuse of the practice of euthanasia; instead, I'll consider whether the act of voluntary euthanasia is permissible or not. For instance, we won't be contemplating a situation where an ordinary person carries out euthanasia without authorization but rather by a doctor under the correct guidelines.

Traditionally, debates over the practice of voluntary or involuntary euthanasia conclude it to be negative and evil.  We view it resentfully because we consider it as taking someone’s future opportunities from them, taking their life from them. Which arguably is the worst kind of misfortune that can fall on a person. Some argue active euthanasia is an act of murder and passive euthanasia is a moral shortcoming in opposition to charity and a lack of assistance. Yet, people have the freedom to make their own decisions, even if those decisions aren't always the greatest ones for them. Ethics of care dictates that we must consider the patient's interpersonal relationships, autonomy, and the patient’s desired outcome in life. Treat the sufferer with justice and beneficence. We must consider whether we are genuinely depriving someone of their future potential. Is their possible future worth the sorrow and pain they experience right now, too? Is their prospective future favorable? Although it is impossible to foretell, we do know that life is more often harsh and cruel than good.

Another argument against passive euthanasia is that everyone has a claim to the right to life, According to Foot, some claims lead to obligations; in this argument, it leads to the doctor having an obligation to treat the patient. For instance, if a patient has stage 4 cancer and does not appear to be improving, it is the doctor's responsibility to continue treatment, try to preserve life, and try to ease suffering. This is due to the patient's optimism and the patient's will to extend his life. But if a patient decides to stop therapy because their suffering surpasses whatever little benefits they might get from it, the same moral justification should be made. “The right to life can sometimes give a duty of positive service, but does not so here. What it gives is the right to be left alone” (Foot 100). The decision to live or not live made by the patient should be given the same respect. (Foot 98-100)

The debate on active voluntary euthanasia is slightly more complicated because the doctor is now actively intervening to end the patient's life rather than prolonging it. Most doctors do not want to be held accountable for someone's "suicide," as is required under active euthanasia. (bellaigue) 

Moreover, a lot of doctors prefer passive voluntary euthanasia compared to active euthanasia since they are not the one’s taking an action to end someone’s life, they are not directly responsible, they are letting nature take its course. However, is murdering someone personally morally worse than simply standing by and watching someone die? Isn't it morally and ethically sound to try to hasten a patient's death according to his will, to accept his preferences, and not prolong his suffering? But they are also acting by choosing to do nothing and let nature run its course. Additionally, because passive euthanasia is generally slower and agonizing, the patient suffers more. Keeping one's hands clean at the price of another person's suffering seems selfish, especially when the patient requests it. (Rachels 78-80)

In conclusion, euthanasia alleviates a patient's suffering and does more benefit than harm. When a patient's life becomes too difficult and intolerable, they have the right to choose death. Additionally, it should not logically raise any moral or ethical concerns. I would also draw the conclusion that euthanasia should only be active instead of passive if the person so wishes, as this results in a rapid and simple death rather than a painful one.

Works Cited

bellaigue, Christopher de. "Death on demand: has euthanasia gone too far?" 12 01 2019. The Gaurdian. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jan/18/death-on-demand-has-euthanasia-gone-too-far-netherlands-assisted-dying. 24 07 2022.

Foot, Philippa. ""Euthanasia." Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol.6, no.2, pp.85-112. JSTOR." n.d. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2264937.

Rachels, James. "Active and Passive Euthanasia." 1975. https://sites.ualberta.ca/~bleier/Rachels_Euthanasia.pdf.