Duty over a Right: Euthanasia Weighed

Euthanasia is a highly emotive and contentious subject, giving rise to a great deal of conflicts. However, despite its frequent exposure in public and professional media, there appears to be a lack of clarity about the concepts and definitions used in the euthanasia controversy. This suggests that discussions on this subject are inadequately informed and ineffectual. The ethical focus of the euthanasia issue concerns the moral legitimacy of voluntary euthanasia. Euthanasia is a deliberate intervention or omission with the express intention of hastening or ending an individuals life, to relieve intractable pain or suffering. As per the given problem of a 60 year old patient with stage 4 cancer asking for euthanasia, I would choose to be the lawyer of the doctor who refuses to perform euthanasia. ETHICAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS My clients refusal of performing euthanasia is primarily because the act itself is against the principles of Beneficence, Nonmaleficence and Life Preservation. By virtue of the Principle of Beneficence, one should act to further the welfare and benefits of another and to prevent evil or harm to that person. Also, the Principle of Nonmaleficence provides that one should refrain from inflicting harm or unduly risking the infliction of harm on another. Lastly, we have a moral duty to protect and preserve human life whenever possible as within the context of life preservation. It is therefore clear that my client only refused to performing euthanasia in consideration of the following principles.

Further, even if the patient invokes the Principle of Autonomy, such principle is overridden by the other three principles consequentially because the duty to preserve life has more weight than a persons right to die. Not only will killing someone for whatever reason inherently unethical and illegal, but it is the exact opposite of the universal rationale of the importance and right to life. Voluntary euthanasia and assisted dying highlights a potentially damaging effects for the individual and society of permitting any form of medically assisted killing. Arguably, the psychological needs of terminally ill patients should be regarded as equally important as their physiological need to relieve pain. The sanctity of life is what should preferentially be preserved versus the right of a person to his autonomy . We can also take into account the slippery slope argument which poses a warning that permitting voluntary euthanasia would inevitably lead to the acceptance of other forms of medically assisted killing. In other words, if euthanasia was to become legal it would not be long before involuntary euthanasia would be carried out under the guise of voluntary euthanasia. Autonomy should be limited when its exercise would have an unacceptable effect on others. Permitting euthanasia and Physician Assisted killing would weaken societys prohibition of intentional killing, and thus weaken the safeguards against non-voluntary euthanasia. Finally, respecting autonomy is not a one-way process. To be autonomous requires a competent person to deliberate on the available alternatives and decide a course of action. An essential by-product of such deliberation is the recognition of other peoples right to exercise their own autonomy. Autonomous healthcare practice is dependent on environments in which a mutual respect for autonomy is sustained and

this is one of the ways in which the use of autonomy to attempt to strengthen the pro euthanasia argument fails. The autonomous patient must also acknowledge and respect theau tonomy of those delivering his or her care and treatment. It is therefore questionable whether patients have a right to receive assistance to die. Rights are justified claims that impose a duty on others. A useful way to determine the validity of a right is to assess it in light of the duties it potentially imposes on others. For example, if some individuals claim a right to voluntary euthanasia or assisted dying, by implication they are indicating that health professionals have a duty to assist them to die. Thus, my client is justified from refusing to preform euthanasia.