Euthanasia, or mercy killing, has been a hotly debated issue for several years. We have always greatly valued human life and have always placed it as paramount, superseding the wellbeing of animals and the environment. This great emphasis on the uniqueness of human life largely stems from religious beliefs that man has a soul but other animals do not. Disregarding this distinction, humans are just like animals, and if it is humane to put a suffering animal to sleep, why is it immoral rather than humane to put a suffering person to rest?
I believe that in certain circumstances euthanasia should be allowed. I believe such situations should involve a terminally ill patient whose chance of survival is miniscule and whose death is going to be slow and painful. Furthermore, the patient should demonstrate a clear desire to depart on his own terms to reduce the suffering of his family as they watch him painfully perish. By using medicine to ease the patient into the eternal sleep, the patient controls the end to his life and can depart peacefully rather than violently. Why should someone not have the ability to control their life? Do we have the right to deny someone the right to pass away calmly? Would it not be torture to refuse to humanely end someone’s life and instead make them live through pain and suffering?
I value human life, and I am by no means trying to degrade the gift of life by saying people should be allowed to give it away when they please. As I alluded to, there should be strict stipulations as to when euthanasia would be the humane course of action. What amazes me is that society accepts putting animals to sleep yet bellows against the same practice in humans. Most people would argue that humans are superior to animals, citing our superior intelligence and existence of souls as key distinguishing characteristics. I feel that neither of these classifications, however, should affect the moral implications of euthanasia. Although humans may be more intelligent than animals, claiming that intelligence makes us superior stems from our own biases. In reality, each animal is uniquely adapted, and no one animal can be said to be better than others; such an assertion would be like saying that a specific person is better than all others due to an arbitrary quality. Regardless of whether humans are superior, we still have the same biological functions as animals, and more importantly, we both can feel pain and pleasure. Furthermore, both humans and animals try to avoid pain and seek pleasure. This base similarity would suggest that if putting an animal in pain to sleep is humane, then putting a person in pain to rest should also be humane. The other noteworthy distinction between humans and animals would be that humans have souls. Obviously, if humans did not have souls, humans and animals would be even more equivalent and then euthanasia in certain contexts should be more acceptable. The larger problem would thus appear to arise when assuming humans do have souls. My understanding of the soul is that it is independent from body and mind and that its main purpose relates to the afterlife. Why would having a soul, however, prevent someone from being able to die peacefully under their own desire? One may argue that suicide would be a sin and that sins harm the soul and thus people should be prevented from euthanasia. Who are we to judge, however, what is and is not a sin? Would God not view the person’s situation and recognize his suffering and his family’s suffering? If one wants to argue that suicide is always a sin then is giving up the will to live also a sin? If suicide in certain circumstances (euthanasia) is not a sin, then how is the soul affected? When someone dies, their physical body and mind may perish, but the soul remains unharmed. Therefore, even if a person has a soul, how does that argument suggest euthanasia is inhumane?
1 comment:
I’m not entirely sure where to begin. I’ll start off by voicing my opinion (which I know that you know already) that you’re wrong. And here’s why:
You first make the mistake of equating humans with animals, and dismiss too rapidly the concept of the “uniqueness of human life” (Adam Rosenthal). Granted, given the premise you began with, you would be right to ignore the assumption that humans and animals are inherently different and proceed to view them as equals, or at least as far as a reverence for life goes. Nevertheless, your premise is incorrect, and I will proceed to explain why.
You state that the reason used by those who place humans apart from animals is that humans have a soul. That is not accurate. The idea is derived from the concept of human dignity, which ties nearly inextricably with the philosophy of natural law. There are numerous ways to defend this ideology which I will not get into at this moment; however, because it is not a strictly religious view, in cannot be dismissed and therefore presents a problem to the rest of your essay. And now that I have established the main point of contention I had with the logical base of your post, I will proceed to address each issue you brought up.
Treatment between humans and animals is different (not necessarily in the boundaries of euthanasia) because of the existence of inherent value in human life. There are different paths people take to reach this conclusion, but regardless of what those are, it is very evident in our culture and everyday lives. This ideology can be seen quite prevalently in our culture. Take two seemingly unrelated examples to begin: the existence of non-vegetarians and the outlawing of murder. Now, if humans are no more inherently valuable than animals, then eating and animal and eating a human would be no different. Cannibalism would have to be allowed. However, if cannibalism is allowed, the fact that we have laws establishing a punishment for murder would not make any sense. It should be perfectly fine to kill people to further one’s own utilitarian interests, granted that the victim’s benefit to society was not as great as his death’s. However, this is clearly not the case – it is commonly understood that murder it wrong. In that case, if the lives of animals and humans are on the same level of consideration, then it would be immoral to eat meat. And yet we don’t have laws against that. There’s something not fitting here. Let us take another example: our Constitution. This document upon which our entire government is based upon legally establishes our inalienable rights. But if humans do not really possess inherent value, then why do we not have identical laws for animals? Animal citizenry? We, the organisms of the United States of America…? This would be a curious mishap made by our founding fathers. One last example from the myriad: the ownership of pets. Man takes a pet, which is fully capable of surviving on its own, into his own house and establishes dominance over it. How can this be? The animal never gave informed consent, and such behavior does not occur amongst two humans (except in slavery, which is almost universally considered wrong). The key to explaining all these examples is the existence and acknowledgment of the inherent worth of human life.
You mention the qualities of pain and pleasure, and the use of both as a standard of living. There is no connection, however, between these feelings and whether or not it is right to end one’s life or not. A man undergoing a depression experiences mental anguish – ought we to let him kill himself to eliminate the pain? A woman has arthritis – should we put her to sleep? Where is the definitive line drawn, and why? The philosophy that pain and pleasure are the two standards by which the quality of life is determined is flawed. The conclusion could be drawn that the accumulation of pleasure and the avoidance of pain should be the ultimate purpose in one’s life. This does not make any sense, however, for pleasure is not an end in and of itself. To say that one should seek pleasure either for the sake of seeking pleasure or because it is pleasurable is a circular argument. The reduction of pain and the accumulation of pleasure may be good things on certain occasions, but to give the two feelings the important role of determining the continuance or termination of life is too great a mantle.
The last part of your blog concerning souls is a bit of a tangent, so I will have to do the same in order to answer it. It sounds as if you are arguing against the Christian perspective of sin, so under that assumption, I will address your points. Having a soul does not directly connect with not being allowed to die under one’s own convenience. The reasoning for that is that humans are inherently valuable, and so to take a human life is wrong without just cause is wrong. As for judging what is a sin and what is not, there is a standard used in Christian theology that establishes guidelines for morality: the Bible. In regards to euthanasia, the Bible contains a story about the fall of Saul’s reign as Israel’s king. He leads his army in a fight against a neighboring country, but loses and is forced to flee. Saul, being wounded, was not able to flee, so he asked an Amalekite nearby to finish him off. Though the Amalekite refused, he reported to David, now king of Israel, that he had killed Saul. If euthanasia is the right thing to do, then David would not have ordered the man’s death. You then mention whether or not God would “recognize his suffering and his family’s suffering” (Adam Rosenthal). This would be true, but it is not for humans to dictate God’s actions. Afterwards, you equate suicide with giving up the will to live. These are two very different actions. If you wanted to punch your friend for getting a higher grade on his essay, but refrained from doing so, is it just as bad as punching your friend? Clearly not. Finally, in response to your last point, I would like to point out that having an immortal soul does not deprive life of value. To make that argument would be to say that life is only valuable because it will not last forever. This cannot be true – its inevitable fate enhances the value it already has due to the influence of time limitation, but does not create value itself.
Post a Comment