FREE ESSAY ON EUTHANASIA

EUTHANASIA

Instituto Tecnologico Y De Estudios Superiores De Monterrey Campus Morelos
The Argumentative Essay
Euthanasia- From a Kantian Perspective
Adriana Sandoval 375242
Marzo 2000 
Active Euthenasia - From A Kantian Perspective
Euthanasia is one of society's more widely debated moral issues of our time. Active
euthanasia is; Doing something, such as administering a lethal drug, or using other ways
that will cause a person's death. In the other hand, Passive euthanasia is; Stopping (or
not starting) a treatment, that will make a person die, the condition of the person will
cause his or her death. It seems that this one is not to debate, as much as the other one
(active). I have chosen to look more closely at the issue of active euthanasia, and that
it should not be considered ethical, by Kantian standards.
Those who support active euthanasia can argue that helping the ill to bring their own
deaths, allowing them to determine the how and when, is not only a human act but also
allows the person, who is living to die, to maintain their dignity; this way, they will
let them die in peace, rather than suffer to the end. Because if not, they think of
themselves as a disgrace, to those they love. According to recent researches and surveys,
many Canadians would agree to this, but my question is, have they taken a close look at
the ethical debate? Those who are against active euthanasia would say not, and would
argue that by participating in the practice of active euthanasia, they are playing God,
or perhaps, that they are not acting out of mercy, therefore, the act is nothing less
than cold-blooded murder. Murder by the law is defined as; The unlawful, premeditated
killing of one human being by another. Euthanasia, in Canada, remains unlawful as of
today, and the act of euthanasia is premeditated, whether for the purpose of mercy or
not, euthanasia is, by definition, murder. According to Kantian perspective established
by Kant the philosopher, and the Holy Bible, murder is both a sin and a crime, therefore
we ought not participate in the practice of euthanasia, because it is murder, and it is
the wrong thing to do.
The euthanasia debate raises many questions. Questions such as: who is the one benefited
by the murder? Or should we allow family members to make a life-or-death decision over a
loved one who may never have expressed a desire to die, simply because they could not say
with words a will to live? If a person should be suffering with an illness of which there
seems no hope of recovery, yet they are unable to make a choice for themselves how do we
know what that person would voluntarily choose? Is it our right to decide whether or not
they have a desire to live? If we are not in the position of the person whose life is
being decided, we cannot possibly know or understand what their will is, what they would
opt for personally, or even whether or not they can comprehend what is happening, thus
the decisions we are making find us playing God, and assuming that our decisions are
always in the best interests of another. Without knowing for sure what the individual
would have chosen, we may well have gone against their will, and thus have committed
murder.
Some would argue that the practice of euthanasia is used as a last resort, when the
individual can no longer manage the pain of their illness. However, that argument can be
rebutted by an observation made by a proponent of a movement similar to Right to Die. Dr
Pieter Admiraal, a leader of a movement to legalize assisted suicide in the Netherlands,
stated publicly that pain is never justification for euthanasia considering the advanced
medical techniques currently available to manage pain in almost every circumstance. Thus
the pain does not justify death, but rather it justifies the need for more money to
educate health care professionals on better pain management techniques.
We should not look into a suicidal person's emotional and psychological background before
we conclude that his or her suicide is acceptable because they are going to die anyway?
We ought to take into consideration, the statistics that tell us that fewer than one in
four people with terminal illness have a desire to die, and that all of those who did
wish to die had previously suffered with clinically diagnosable depression. If we choose
to overlook these statistics, and others that tell us that psychotherapeutic treatments
are not only available, but equally successful among people with terminal illness, as
among people without then we are indeed one again, committing murder. 
If a physically healthy person who suffered with depression were to approach us with
thoughts of suicide, we would comfort them, seek treatment for them, and provide as much
as we were able, to see that they got the reassurance and the psychological and/or
emotional help that they needed. Certainly we would not tell them that the choice was
theirs and hand them a gun. Why then do we not do the same for those suffering with a
physical illness? Further statistics tell us that the chances for living a happy life are
often greater for a person who has attempted suicide, but are stopped, and provided with
the help they need, than for individuals suffering with similar problems, who have never
attempted suicide. We should be making every effort to find alternatives to euthanasia,
and help people with their problems, instead of helping them to end what very well could
be a happy life.
I personally believe that it would be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to
legislate a point of illness or disability where euthanasia would be considered legally
or ethically acceptable. To do so would be saying that all disabled or terminally ill
patients have no chance for a happy and fulfilling life. I believe that we are taking
quite a risk when we bring about another person's death willfully, thus assuming that we
have the ability to look into the future and estimate their life unlivable. Therefore,
euthanasia should not be aplicated in any case because we can't decide over others
unknowable will. And neither could be considered as ethical because it totally violates
the will, the freedom of choice, and also the values of the ill person.