AK2003- Technology and Ethics

valeries@kth.se

Euthanasia
Valerie. S
Keywords: Euthanasia, morality, allow
Euthanasia have been legalised in a small number of countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium
today. There are many controversies for and against the use of Euthanasia as it involves the aspect of
the human life and it is inevitably intertwined with morality and religion issues. Young (2008) argues
that there are certain conditions that have to be met for the use of Voluntary Euthanasia. One of them
is whereby the user is suffering from a terminal illness such that Euthanasia can help to put an end to
his suffering. However, Paterson (2005) argues that justice and societal demands do not allow us to
legalize euthanasia as it would be considered as a form of suicide and an act of injustice against the
state and society. With the advancement of medical technology, it is actually possible to prolong and
preserve the lives of those who are terminally ill with little hope in recovery. The fear of being kept
alive by life sustaining technologies brings about the question of whether euthanasia should be
allowed in the situation whereby continued life is not dignified anymore. In this essay, we will discuss
the arguments on why euthanasia should be allowed or not, as well as the circumstances under which
euthanasia can be allowed.
The term euthanasia originated from two Greek words which means "good death". Also known as
mercy killing, euthanasia is the act of putting one to death painlessly. The three main classifications of
euthanasia and they are Active Euthanasia, Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) and Passive Euthanasia.
Active euthanasia can be referred to the act of putting one to death, usually a terminally ill patient
upon voluntary request. Physical Assisted Suicide can be known as Voluntary Passive Euthanasia, is
where a competent person such as a doctor provides information and means for an individual to
terminate his life. Passive euthanasia would be to hasten death by not preventing it (Goel, 2008). The
acts of euthanasia can be further categorised into voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary. Voluntary
euthanasia would be performing euthanasia at the patient's request, non-voluntary euthanasia would
be administering euthanasia when the patient is unable to give his consent and involuntary euthanasia
would be whereby the life of the patient is brought to an end involuntarily despite his or her objection
(Young, 2008).
The essence of human life is to live in dignity whereby humans are able to live a life worth living.
From a Kantian point of view, the human being is an end itself thus all human beings have an intrinsic
value and not mere instrumental value. This makes humans autonomous and rational beings with the
ability to reason (Yount, n.d.). Dignity is one such intrinsic worth that humans inherently
have(Rachels,1986). By possessing dignity, an individual it not valued just as a means to an end for
others, but as an end in himself where he deserves respect and the right to decide his own life choices.
Being able to make such life choices such as pursuing their interests, setting life goals and achieving
them would be equivalent to living with dignity. In the case of a terminally ill patient that with no
hope for survival, the individual would not be able to live with dignity as he would be suffering and
living in a state of intense pain and humiliation. This is especially the case when the sick patient is
unable to carry out his daily activities such as walking and reliving himself. By needing to rely on the
help of others, the life of a terminally ill patient would be degraded to a weak and dependant state and
he might feel helpless, humiliated and embarrassed which can diminish his standard of living and
quality of life. He would be in no position to make his own life choices and unable to experience
happiness ,live properly and pursue life goals like ordinary people which results in the patient living
an undignified life. As such, when the burdens of life outweigh the benefits of living due to the
1

AK2003- Technology and Ethics

valeries@kth.se

immense pain, upon the patient's request, active voluntary euthanasia can be administered to the
individual for him to end his life in order to be released from extreme pain and the low quality of life
that he is experiencing. Doing so, euthanasia can aid in preserving the patient's desire to retain dignity
(Young, 2008) as he would be able to have control over the remaining time that is left and live his
remaining life to the fullest.
One argument in favour for the use of euthanasia is that individuals have the right to die especially
when the choice is made on a voluntary basis by the individual himself. There is a general assumption
amongst many people that human beings should have the right to die as well as when and how they
want to (Right to Life, 2009) since they are in control of their own bodies, thoughts and actions. This
supports the principle that humans are autonomous beings and should have the right to make their
own life decisions (Tadikonda,2009). In exercising self autonomy, humans deserve respect from
others and take responsibility for their actions in life. Respecting a person would be equivalent to
respecting their choice as long as these choices do not bring about any form of harm to others
(Young,2008). As such, even with a third party such as a doctor administers euthanasia to a willing
patient, the act itself would be in accordance to the interest of the patient which makes such
physician-assisted suicide morally permissible (Cholbi, 2004).
Another point that supports the use of euthanasia would be the objection to the prolonging of life
itself. The idea of preserving the life of a human being involves the concept of either extending the
lifespan of a person, or saving the person from imminent death. Reasons to why humans prolong life
includes the belief that life is precious and should be lived to the fullest. With the rapid advancement
in medical technology, the diverse range of medical treatments from drugs to intensive care units used
to treat diseases and illness can help the sick to prolong their life. For the sick living for an additional
few months, this can bring about happiness and priceless moments for their loved ones. However,
there have been debates that such a move can bring about detrimental effects such as the diminishing
quality of life. This includes the heavy emotional cost to both the patient and families (Lee, 2010)
when the patients are unable to carry out normal daily duties. For example, the use of mechanical
ventilation supplies oxygen to the body as a replacement to lungs that are not functioning properly. A
person that is on mechanical ventilation cannot perform physical activities which can diminish his
quality of life. When body of the dying patient start to fails, the oxygen supplied by such technology
only keeps the patient alive but it does not improve the underlying condition (Cleveland Clinic, 2013)
and suffering inflicted on the patient. As such, in opposition to prolonging the life of an individual,
passive euthanasia can be administered instead. By withholding any forms of treatment that are life
sustaining, which could prolong the suffering and pain felt by the patient, the patient is allowed to die.
Doing so can reduce the physical and emotional pain inflicted on the patient and his immediate loved
ones.
From the perspective of virtue ethics, one argument supporting the use of euthanasia is that such a
procedure facilitates eudaimonia, a state of human flourishing. In this point of view, life is treated as a
continued journey of experiences and not as a separate entity. The process of dying and facing death
would then be viewed as a part of life journey and milestone. (Begley, 2008) Hence, virtue ethics will
view an individual at a particular point in life, such as nearing death and the part on living well would
encompass the scope of dying well as well. In addition, a patient request for euthanasia will be
associated with the choice of how he wants to spend the remaining time in his life and not the decision
to whether he wants to live or die (Liezl, 2002).Taking the example that a terminally sick patient is
suffering from pain, he would not be able to spent the last moments of his life happily and die in
peace. Not being able to die well would be against the goal of flourishing for both the patient and

AK2003- Technology and Ethics

valeries@kth.se

practitioners of euthanasia. As such, in order to facilitate the capacity to flourish in a situation

whereby dying well is what the patient deem fit, euthanasia would be a valid option to choose.
Also, in virtue ethics, Aristotle emphasises on virtues such as courage. It can be argued that a patient's
request for euthanasia could be viewed as an act of courage. Courage is the ability of an individual to
confront and accept his own fears whereby one of which could be death. Doing so would prove that
the patient accepts death as a part and parcel of life, and is brave enough to embrace death knowing
that it is an inevitable process. The act of a patient being able to let go of his loved ones and free
them from the emotional turmoil of watching the slow degeneration process would be deemed as a
courageous act (Liezl, 2002). Furthermore, it is undeniable that there is some form of high medical
cost incurred with the hospitalisation of a terminally ill patient which takes up a lot of time, space and
money. In a society with limited resources, accepting death using euthanasia can not only relief the
economical burdens on the patient's family, but also free up spaces in hospitals which could be of
more benefit to other patients. This would be deemed as a noble and courageous decision. However,
some may also argue that the use of euthanasia is not a form of courage. Instead, it is viewed as an act
of cowardice whereby the patient is afraid to face pain and suffering which is also part of life and
euthanasia is being used as an option to escape the pain of suffering and fear of imminent death. In
my opinion, I feel that act of using euthanasia is only courageous on the circumstance that a
terminally ill patient with no chance of recovery is able to embrace death as part of life and request for
active voluntary euthanasia. However, patients that have a chance of recovery but yet wants to use
euthanasia as a quick way to escape suffering would definitely be an act of cowardice and in this case,
euthanasia should not be allowed.
However, there are some objections such as religious arguments that opposes the view that humans
have the right to die. The Roman Catholic Church is one example of an organisation that actively
opposes euthanasia. In the Christian Bible, the sixth commandment states that 'thou shalt not kill' and
euthanasia as a form of mercy killing is considered as suicide which goes against the principles of
Christianity as it violates the natural law that God created to govern the existence of humans (suicideplato) From a religious point of view, human life is scared and special as it is created by god. Hence,
life is a gift from and taking away the lives of people by hastening the process of death would not
only be seen as rejecting the gift that God bestowed on humans, but also playing God. This would be
equivalent to interfering with God's plan for the soul (Christina, 1998) as humans do not have the
right to choose when to die as only God, instead of moral individuals, have the authority to determine
the deaths of humans (Cholbi, 2004). Even so, there are some arguments that goes against the idea of
a gift of life bestowed by God. It can be perceived that the gift becomes the property of the individual
and has no relations with the previous owner. As such, after life is given by God, humans have the
right to do what they want with it and this includes shortening their life using euthanasia. Euthanasia
would also be against the idea of the sanctity of life. All humans have an inherent value which is
precious, valuable and deserves respect. Killing oneself using euthanasia would violate our moral duty
to uphold the value of life (Cholbi, 2004). From a Kantian point of view, euthanasia should not be
allowed as permitting mercy killing may result in a new universal law of accepting murder and
suicide using euthanasia. Not only that, euthanasia would eliminate all possibilities of a miracle
whereby the patient would recover from his illness, thus denying the patient of a future he potentially
could have.
Another point that opposes the use of euthanasia would be that if euthanasia would be allowed, it
could inevitable result in a slippery slope argument that might lead to legalised murder in society
when we cannot limit the killing for those who wants to die (Singer, 2009). After a period of time, the
distinction between what constitutes as voluntary euthanasia or non voluntary euthanasia might be
3

AK2003- Technology and Ethics

valeries@kth.se

blurred. This could lead to the risk of abuse of euthanasia such as using it for suicide. Take an
assumption that the initial rationale behind allowing euthanasia was to put an end to suffering for
terminally sick patients who do not want to prolong their agony which is a form of voluntary
euthanasia. However, once euthanasia allowed, such as in the Netherlands, doctors would be required
to explain the option of euthanasia to the patient and loved ones if applicable (Tadikonda, 2009). In
this scenario whereby patients and loved ones are aware of such an option, the patient may be
pressured by his family members into putting a quick end to his life in order to alleviate the monetary
burdens associated with medical treatment. As a result, the choice would not be on a truly voluntary
basis anymore and the rationale behind the use of euthanasia changes. What started out as a voluntary
choice under special circumstances could be exploited into killing innocent people alongside with
move from voluntary euthanasia towards non voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Some may say
that the slippery slope argument is too farfetched and there are many assumptions involved in this
argument. However, I feel that one cannot ignore the possibility of a slippery slope for euthanasia and
the argument is valid if laws governing the use of euthanasia is not carefully researched on and
regulated after.
Opponents of euthanasia would suggest that palliative care is a better option to euthanasia and
allowing euthanasia would drive the focus to be directed on the quick option of death instead of
providing care for the living, especially when euthanasia would be the cheaper and more economical
decision. Palliative care has the common aim with euthanasia which would be to alleviate suffering,
however there is no need to end the life of an individual. Palliative care be described as care for the
terminally ill patient physically, emotionally and spiritually which also involves the participation of
the patient loved ones. It aims to allow the patient to embrace death as part of a natural process and
improve the quality of life with the remaining time left for the patient. This also reduces the desire for
the patient to end his life early. Even so, this point is still debatable as there are also limitations to
palliative care which include the fact that it cannot address all kinds of suffering and some palliative
intervention may even lead to more discomfort in which euthanasia may be a better option instead
(Hurst & Mauron, 2006). Allowing the use of euthanasia may also slow down scientific progress in
the medical field as it hinders the search for new cures and treatment. When euthanasia is allowed for
a sick patient with no hope of recovery, there would be no motivation to find new cures as euthanasia
would be the solution to all terminal illnesses. Not only that, allowing an early death might also
facilitate the transplantation of organs which could be used to save more lives. With limited medical
progress, this will eventually slow down human flourishing. This argument assumes that euthanasia
would be accepted by everyone and even if we take into consideration the fact that not everyone
might be receptive towards the use of euthanasia, we cannot exclude the possibility that such outcome
might result if euthanasia were to be permitted.
We can see that the topic on allowing the use of euthanasia is a very debatable one and there are
various arguments supporting and against it. In the discussion above, proponents of euthanasia would
bring about arguments on the pain of suffering, the rights of autonomy and even from a moral point of
view, euthanasia can be an acceptable choice. However, there are also arguments against euthanasia,
with opponents bringing up religious arguments, the possibility of a slippery slope downfall and even
other options to euthanasia. Euthanasia is a complicated topic with no definite right or wrong, but in
my opinion, I feel that euthanasia should be permitted under certain circumstances. As death is a
natural and inevitable process, the argument would lie within whether it is permissible to use
euthanasia to hasten death and shorten suffering and which conditions would euthanasia be allowed.
In many arguments, euthanasia is defined as mercy killing and can be equivalent to suicide or even
murder especially in the case when involuntary euthanasia is given to a patient against his will. These
4

AK2003- Technology and Ethics

valeries@kth.se

arguments are against the idea of killing, with religious arguments stating that it is against God, and
moral arguments suggesting the downward spiral it can lead in society especially when euthanasia is
easily prone to abuse if it is freely allowed. These arguments are not wrong and there are good
intentions behind their reasoning. We do not want a society whereby people are not treating life
seriously and treating it for granted. Religion and morality helps us to live by our values and be good
citizens to society and not cause harm to others. It is understandable that there are a lot of concern
regarding the use of euthanasia given that it is still not widely accepted in many countries and the
potential harm and burdens could seemingly outweigh the benefits.
There are several circumstances in which euthanasia should and should not be allowed. I feel that as
for now, non voluntary euthanasia and involuntary should not be allowed still as there are many
ambiguities to whom shall have the final say. Take the example of patients that are in coma and are
kept alive by life sustaining machines. In their vegetative state, they are not in a position to make a
rational decision. Would their family members be given the right to make a choice on behalf of the
sick patient? We will never know what are the true intentions behind non voluntary euthanasia
requests made by family members and whether those decisions truly aligns with what the patient
needs. Given the ambiguity, non voluntary euthanasia should not be allowed. Even so, I feel that
under a controlled environment with strict conditions for the use of euthanasia, the benefits to the
individual would be maximised and at the same time, potential harm to society would be minimised.
Hence, euthanasia can be allowed given that the patient is suffering from a terminal illness with no
hope of recovery and he requests for the administration of euthanasia only on a voluntary basis that he
wish to die with dignity. This is because in a situation whereby life is not dignified anymore, the
patient will deem that life is not worth living. With euthanasia, the patient would be able to put an end
his pain and die with dignity instead of suffering from continual humiliation due to the need to rely on
others and unable to carry out daily activities which degrades his quality of life. This would support
the virtue ethicist point of view on human flourishing whereby dying well is part of living well. Even
so, we cannot deny the fact that euthanasia is prone to abuse and might be used by people for their
own selfish reasons. As such, there have to be strict conditions in place which regulates the use of
euthanasia. One would be the part that the choice is of the patient's own free will when he decides that
the benefits of death outweighs the burdens of living and the other would be the applicability of such
an option only to a terminally ill patient. On a whole, there is a need to understand the arguments and
counter arguments surrounding euthanasia such that appropriate guidelines and legislation can be
made. In conclusion, with all the arguments revolving euthanasia being discussed, we can conclude
that there can never be a definite yes or no to allowing the use of euthanasia. A compromise between
both sides under a case basis with strict regulations would be the best choice in maximising benefit
for the individual and minimise harm on society.

AK2003- Technology and Ethics

valeries@kth.se

References:
Begley, A. M. (2008). Guilty but good: defending voluntary active euthanasia from a virtue
perspective. Nursing ethics, 15(4), 434-445.
Cholbi, M. (2004). Suicide. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Retrieved from < http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/suicide/#MorPer>
Christina, L.H.T. (1998). Religious Perspectives on Assisted Suicide. Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, Volume 88, Issue 3 Spring, Article 13. Retrieved from <
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6971&context=jclc>
Cleveland Clinic. (2013). Understanding Life Support Measures. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation.
Retrieved from <
http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/healthy_living/hic_Understanding_Life_Support_Measures>
Goel, V. (2008). EuthanasiaA dignified end of life!. International NGO Journal,3(12), 224-231.
Retrieved from < http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1380895703_Goel.pdf>
Hurst, S. A., & Mauron, A. (2006). The ethics of palliative care and euthanasia: exploring common
values. Palliative Medicine, 20(2), 107-112.
Lee, T. (2010). Medical Technology prolongs lives. But is that a good thing? Medcity News. Retrieved
from < http://medcitynews.com/2010/06/medical-technology-prolongs-lives-but-is-that-a-goodthing/>
Liezl, V.Z. (2002). Euthanasia, Virtue Ethics and the Law. New Zealand Bioethics Journal, Volume 3,
Issue 1. Retrieved from <http://www.academia.edu/213623/Euthanasia_virtue_ethics_and_the_law>
Paterson, C. (2005). A History of Ideas Concerning the Morality of Suicide, Assisted Suicide and
Voluntary Euthanasia. Physician Assisted Euthanasia, 1.
Rachels, J. (1986). Kantian theory: the idea of human dignity. From James Rachels The Elements of
Moral Philosophy, p114-117, 122-23.
Right to Life. (2009). Euthanasia- A Controversial Contemporary Issue. Right to Life Charitable
Trust.
Retrieved from <http://www.righttolife.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/KS4Euthanasia.pdf>
Singer, P. (2009). Slippery Slope of Doctor-Assisted Euthanasia. The Japan Times. Retrieved from
<http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2009/11/18/commentary/world-commentary/slippery-slope-ofdoctor-assisted-euthanasia/#.VUX-OPmqqkp>
Tadikonda, Rajitha (ed.) (2009). Physician Assisted Euthanasia. Icfai University Press. Retrieved
from: <
http://www.academia.edu/2886322/A_History_of_Ideas_Concerning_the_Morality_of_Suicide_Assis
ted_Suicide_and_Voluntary_Euthanasia>
Young, R. (2008). Voluntary euthanasia. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from <
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/#Int>

AK2003- Technology and Ethics

valeries@kth.se

Yount, D. (n.d). Immanuel Kant's Ethical Theory Rights and Duties. Mesa Community College.
Retrieved from < http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/BUS205-11.3.2-ImmanuelKants-Ethical-Theory.pdf>