Euthanasia has always been a matter of active debate in society since many people believe in each person’s right to decide whether their life is worth living, and other people strongly disagree. Thus, self-termination has become a highly controversial ethical issue and a significant concern of the modern healthcare industry since clinicians are usually the ones who apply euthanasia, which makes them directly involved in the process. Many researchers and scientists have been exploring the topic, trying to find an appropriate solution, which is why there are various works presenting different viewpoints. For instance, there was an article by a philosophy and bioethics professor named J. David Velleman published in the Ethics journal in 1999. The author discusses the principles on which self-termination is based, presenting his own opinion. Velleman believes that a person should not have the right to end their life as it can make other people suffer, but there is an objection to his opinion related to that person’s own pain.
Velleman’s Argument
The first principle the professor describes in his work is related to a person’s right to end their life if they deem it appropriate in specific circumstances. Velleman (1999) describes this principle as one’s right to make their life shorter if it is necessary to make it better. Euthanasia, or assisted suicide, is intended to help a patient when the overall value of their life does not justify its continuation in their eyes. However, Velleman (1999) does not believe that benefits obtained and harms avoided due to self-termination present a solid ground for the right to end one’s life. The professor states that a person’s life is not their own as other people may care about it or depend on it (Velleman, 1999). For instance, euthanasia might involve depriving children of their parents or husbands of their wives. People who do not think that their life is worth living should consider the opinions of their friends, relatives, and beloved ones before they choose to apply for assisted suicide. In other words, Velleman’s position suggests that a person’s life is not always their own.
Potential Objection to Velleman’s Position
Although the professor’s position is reasonable and well-explained in his article, several objections to it cannot be ignored. One of them is particularly solid and appears as a reversed version of Velleman’s opinion. He questions a person’s right to deprive other people of their loved one by agreeing to euthanasia (Velleman, 1999). However, a counterquestion arises about people’s right to make their loved ones live the life they do not want to live. Suppose a man has a severe incurable illness that makes him suffer daily, spending all his days in a hospital ward, unable to leave it. That man wants to end his life using assisted suicide, but his wife and parents are against that decision as they do not want to lose the person they love. Thus, an issue occurs: applying euthanasia would deprive the man’s family of their beloved son and husband, but not applying it would make him suffer for the rest of his life. Velleman’s argument has an opposite objection of the exact nature, which makes this ethical problem seem unsolvable.
Nonetheless, this objection is highly problematic to the professor’s opinion as the two opposed principles presented in this paper are both associated with suffering but involve different types of pain. If euthanasia were not applied in the case described above, it would bring physical pain to the man; if it were applied, it would bring mental pain to his family. Velleman (1999) believes that physical pain does not sufficiently justify assistance in dying. However, mental pain and anguish are not unbearable, and people can overcome them, even though it usually takes some time. People’s ability to bear physical pain, on the contrary, is limited by the capabilities of their bodies. Therefore, it is unfair to demand a person to continue living their life based on the grounds of the mental pain an assisted suicide would bring to their friends and family. If the suffering is unbearable for a person, they should have the right to end their life, and their loved ones might consider supporting that decision instead of going against it.
Conclusion
Although Velleman suggests a person should not make their loved ones suffer by applying euthanasia, their friends and family should consider what that person has to go through to continue living their life. The professor does not want to accept assisted suicide as a solution on the grounds of obtaining benefits and avoiding harm. He believes that a father must not deprive his children of a parent or his wife of a husband solely based on his unwillingness to live his life. However, the potential objection suggests that a person’s close people must not make them suffer because of their unwillingness to lose that person. This criticism seems stronger than Velleman’s argument, as physical pain is usually harder to bear than mental anguish. Thus, people should have the right to end their life using euthanasia in case it brings them more suffering than joy and happiness.
Reference
Velleman, J. D. (1999). A right of self-termination?Ethics, 109(3), 606-628.