During discussions about euthanasia, I have more often than not encountered the position that it is okay to end the life of those in a vegetative state. The reason provided usually falls along the lines of, “There is not a chance that they will recover. They will remain in the state forever, so it is reasonable to end their life because they are essentially dead anyway.” There are usually multiple justifications for this statement. One is that it is inconvenient and impractical to allow the life of the vegetative patient to continue when there is no end in sight, and when the resources could be used for other things. Another is that it would be doing them a favor since it would be suffering to live out the rest of their years in such a state. Regardless of the validity of these arguments, they all boil down to the same thing: the decision to sustain life is based upon whether or not one will eventually be able to function biologically in the future.
Without making any sort of comment on whether I agree with this or not, I would like to note that many in favor of this position also happen to be pro-choice in the debate about abortion. However, this seems to be a contradiction. If the decision does indeed depend upon the predicted ability to function biologically, then it would be reasonable to assume that abortion should be made illegal since the fetus has the potential to grow into a fully capable being. Interestingly enough, this is not at all the case – rather, the idea that the fetus is not yet human seems to be the argument of the pro-choice advocates, and that since it is not yet human, killing it is morally justified. This appears to be quite a paradox. Fetuses, though most have a solid chance to develop into a fully functional being biologically if left alone, are okay to be terminated on the grounds that they are not yet human. And yet fully-grown people in a vegetative state, though obviously human, are okay to kill as well due to the fact that they will no longer enjoy full biological-capacity.
Though this paradox does not apply to everyone generally in favor of euthanasia and/or abortion, it is certainly a strange inconsistency that I have yet to hear an explanation for.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Although you bring up some interesting points, I think that you do not address an important factor when deciding when someone (infant or adult) should be put to rest: the issue of financial burden. You make it sound like most condone "killing" people in vegetative states and justify such an action because the person is "essentially dead anyway." I believe, however, that few people actually fully support such a claim. In my experience, many people are forced to suspend life support due to the financial burdens, time issues, etc. rather than because the person will no longer have biological function. Even if the person will not have a biological function, the family still has sentimental attachment, and the mere physical presence of the vegetative person prevents them from having to let go completely. True, eventually the family will have to watch their beloved member die, but people are not so callous as to justify "killing" because the vegetative person serves no biological function. In terms of fetuses, some people who get abortions do so because they believe they cannot provide a good life for the child, often times due to financial constraints. In these circumstances, the parent does not justify "killing" because the fetus is not alive but rather justifies the action as to preserve her own life and prevent both her life and the fetuses from being undesirable. In reality, the belief that a fetus is not alive and thus acceptable to kill may serve more as a rationalization/defense mechanism for the action rather than a reason.
Post a Comment