Download Legalizing Euthanasia

Angelina Nagrebelnaya
Landscape of American Thought
Final Research Paper
04/27/2015
Legalizing Euthanasia: A Libertarian Perspective
The issue of the legalization of euthanasia has been the subject of a long and
tedious debate in American politics. Because of the pervasive influence of Judeo/
Christian values, traditional, conservative views hamper the politics of modern time and
block progressive legislation regarding issues such as euthanasia. The libertarian point of
view, with its inherent emphasis of self-determination, provides the appropriate ethical
guideline for this often-polarizing issue. A society that values individual freedom must
grant each person the right to decide when his life is no longer worth living. The personal
power of each person to decide what he can or cannot do with his/her life just so long as
his actions do not intervene with the lives of others is a right right fully entrenched in the
Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of individual liberty. The argument presented in this
paper will only focus on voluntary active euthanasia, which is defined as "intentionally
administering medications to cause the patient's death at the patient's request and with
full, informed consent" (Manning, 1998). (Physician-assisted suicide, as opposed to
voluntary active euthanasia, entails making lethal means available to the patient to be
used at a time of the patient’s own choosing. By contrast, voluntary active euthanasia
entails the physician taking an active role in carrying out the patient’s request, and
usually involves intravenous delivery of a lethal substance. (“What is the difference
between…,” n.d.)
As with any ethical dilemma, the full spectrum of nuances must be accounted for
in order to reach a conclusion that will bring about legislature to govern a populous. In
their book, Death with Liberty and Justice, Grisez and Boyle clearly lay out a detailed
array of arguments that support the conservative anti-euthanasia agenda. Firstly, the
Nagrebelnaya 2
argument presented rationalizes that one will have to be told the full extent of the
hopelessness of their medical condition all at once rather than in gradual stages in order
to secure the legal requirements of informed consent needed for voluntary euthanasia
(Grisez & Boyle, 1979). The second argument says that persons who do not want
euthanasia would eventually hear about their illness from other patients with the same
condition and carry with them the pressure of this unwanted information. As a libertarian,
recognizing the individual’s right to information about his/herself is vital. Hiding from
the person the potential detriments of one’s prognosis simply to “protect” him/her from
reality is exponentially worse than explaining the full repercussions of his/her condition
because abstaining from telling the truth is just an elaborate form of dishonesty. In the
latter scenario, the fully informed person is enabled to make an educated decision
pertaining his life. In the second argument, the mere possibility that a patient may have to
hear information that is uncomfortable is not solid enough evidence to constitute as lawdictating morality and withhold the choice of euthanasia from the rest of the population.
In their third and fourth arguments, Grisez and Boyle explain that legalizing the
practice of euthanasia will cause internal contradiction to those morally opposed to it but
seduced to use it to avoid suffering; consequently, having violated their conscience
beliefs will serve as an additional moral burden. Also, a person otherwise opposed to the
practice may choose euthanasia to avoid being an inconvenience to his family or society
because of economic and medical expenses (1979). The clearest embodiment of
immorality, however, is to remove the choice of the individual to make a free willed
decision on his own. If society prevents the legalization of euthanasia, it, by extension,
allows the state to dictate the morality for every individual and takes away each human’s
Nagrebelnaya 3
basic right to decide what he will do with his life on the basis of the morality of other
individuals who happen to be representatives in the legislative body. If a person is
morally opposed euthanasia, he is not forced to accept it; he simply has the choice to
decide. In the scenario that he is tempted to use this option to end his suffering, that will
have been his own conscious decision. The moral burden that may come along with this
decision cannot, in any, way be legislated by the government. The legislative body is
constitutionally obligated to uphold the freedom of choice and whatever each individual
may adopt is, at that point, his own moral responsibility. It is not the government’s
calling to legislate morality; instead, legislation should be accommodating to a society’s
diversity in a true democracy. Since morality is subjective, the law should not intervene
with one person’s practices because another person finds his practices immoral. One
opinion of morality does not supersede the next and thus, morality in the law should
remain ambiguous and considerate of all who live under it; the only way to achieve true
equality for all under the law is to neither legislatively restrict nor enforce these
subjective morals. Although some basic restrictions should exist, freedom of actions
should be permitted insofar as it does not interfere with the lives and free acts of others.
A commonly cited argument against the legalization of euthanasia is commonly
referred to as “the slippery slope argument.” In this approach, it is argued, “if voluntary
euthanasia were to become legal, it would not be long before involuntary euthanasia
would start to happen.” Proponents of this argument explain that doctors will be more
likely to write a lethal prescription to terminally ill patients rather than to save them in
order to be due to cost-consciousness or to free beds in the hospital. The legalization of
voluntary euthanasia, then, would eventually lead to the tolerance of involuntary
Nagrebelnaya 4
euthanasia (“Anti-Euthanasia Arguments,” n.d., para. 14). The problem with that
argument is that citing many examples of abuse of a legal right is not sufficient to justify
withholding that right. If the likelihood of abuse were thought to be grounds for
withholding a right, then much more than euthanasia would have to be banned. Driving,
for example, would have to be prohibited on the grounds that this right is abused and that
none of the safeguards we have against such abuse are completely effective. Another
factor this argument fails to address is that abuse is possible even when euthanasia and
assisted suicide are legally prohibited. It is naïve to think that covert forms of euthanasia
and assisted suicide are not occurring in places where those practices are illegal. At least
some of those instances would constitute abuse if a legal right to die existed (Benatar,
2011). From a libertarian stance, though, the regulation of euthanasia and the safeguard
of its voluntary practice across all patients would be governmentally enforced. Although
libertarianism calls for minimal governmental legislation, in the words of John Stuart
Mill, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of
a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others,” (Mill, 1859, p.2122). Since euthanasia is a subject matter regarding a person’s choice and individual will
as well as matters of life itself, government regulation is called for and undoubtedly
constitutional. Furthermore, the right to die does not mean that doctors have the duty to
kill. As well as having the right to die, people also have the right to life and respect for
this right is sufficient to protect against misuse of euthanasia, as any doctor who kills a
patient who does not want to die has violated that person's rights.
Next, the argument that there is “no reason for a person to suffer either mentally
or physically because effective end of life treatments are available; therefore, euthanasia
Nagrebelnaya 5
is not a valid treatment option, but represents a failure on the part of the doctor involved
in a person’s care” has also been a prominent stance on the anti-euthanasia perspective
(Arguments for and Against Euthanasia, n.d. para. 7). According to this argument, if a
person is given the right care and the right environment, there should be no reason why
they are unable to have a dignified and painless natural death. Although this argument, in
theory, sounds viable, in practice, this is not always the case. Assigning blame to doctors
for not providing the right care or environment is an issue separate from denying a person
his choice to life and death likewise; it then becomes an affair within medical policy.
Nevertheless, whether or not options to die painlessly are available (which is not always
the case, (Johnson-Penn, 2009)), the choice of each human being to continue (or not to
continue) living is his own personal and intimate decision and taking away this choice
violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of individual liberty. It should not a
function of the state to determine for what reason a person should be allowed wish to
terminate his life. This suggestion fails to recognize that it is not always pain that renders
a life not worth living. For some people, the prospect of continuing in a minimally
conscious or unconscious state for the rest of their biological life is a fate worse than
death. Opponents of a right to die sometimes reply that people with such views can be
helped to realize that such a condition is not worse than death. However, this line of
argument is dangerous precisely because it could as easily be argued that those who think
that death is worse than sedation until natural death could be helped to realize that they
are wrong and that they should therefore agree to euthanasia (Benatar, 2011).
A contradiction to John Stuart Mill’s philosophy that one’s free acts may not be
prevented as long as they do not intervene with the free acts of others or do not harm
Nagrebelnaya 6
other members of society is that euthanasia is not a private act as it has harmful
psychological effects on the people present in the given person’s life as well as
detrimental consequences on society at large (“Pro- Euthanasia Arguments,” n.d.).
Although the decision a person may make may affect the people in his life, nobody has a
responsibility for the guardianship of the moral well-being of others. By that logic,
people should be obligated to make major life choices not because of their autonomous
judgment but instead would be legally obligated to make decisions purely to appease
others. No person should hold a moral obligation to another or to society because
principled standards of morality are too subjective to legislate; thus, enforcing certain
moral principles as law is discriminatory and unjust, violating the fundamental rights of
individuals.
In summation, euthanasia and death is a foundational right of human beings in a
civilized community ruled democratically. Taking away the choice of how to go about
living (or dying) is an infringement of basic constitutional guarantees to liberty. Ethical
arguments that exist to prevent this right, are, by extension, declaring a breach on the
autonomy of individual rights. The implication that one ethical standpoint overrules
another, when, sensibly, it is logical to assess that all moral perspectives are identically
equal in their substantive legitimacy when it comes to informing legislature, is simply
absurd. The libertarian philosophy allows for the inclusion of all moral principles in an
unbiased approach to policy. In conclusion, euthanasia should be legalized to allow
citizens to practice their autonomous, individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Nagrebelnaya 7
Works Cited
Anti- Euthanasia Arguments. (n.d.). BBC News. Retrieved April 9, 2015,
from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml
Benatar, D. (2011, January 1). A legal right to die: Responding to slippery
slope and abuse arguments. Retrieved April 9, 2015, from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3185895/
Grisez, G. G., & Boyle, J. M. (1979). Life and death with liberty and justice: a
contribution to the euthanasia debate. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre
Dame Press.
Johnson-Penn, G. (2009, November 11). Treatment too painful for
some cancer patients - Futurity. Retrieved April 9, 2015, from
http://www.futurity.org/treatment-too-painful-for-some-cancer-patients/
Mill, J. (1859). Of The Liberty of Thought and Discussion. In On
Liberty (pp. 21-22). J. W. Parker and Son.
Pro-euthanasia arguments. (n.d.). BBC News. Retrieved April 9, 2015, from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/infavour/infavour_1.shtml#section_2
What is the Difference Between Assisted Dying and Euthanasia? (n.d.). Retrieved May 2,
2015, from http://www.worldrtd.net/qanda/what-difference-between-assisteddying-and-euthanasia