What would you do if a friend of yours, a practicing doctor, sought your advice on whether he should let his chronically ill mother undergo euthanasia, otherwise known as ‘mercy killing’?
The ethical dilemma in this case is this: the patient wants the injection, the daughter in- law says she should wait; and the son says never. Besides, he is a doctor and as such, the only one who could make an informed decision. Physician author John Singer, who also had to make a decision on his mother, observes that “it becomes very difficult when that person is your mother (qtd in Preece 2002, p 30). The only difference, however, is that Singer thinks the money used to support a terminally sick person, who will eventually die regardless the effort, could be put into better use such as helping the poor.
The right to life guarantees every person the legal and moral protection against the termination of one’s life by another person through whatever means. Every human being has the right to live his/her life to the fullest, enjoying all the possible accompanying privileges. However, when the quality of live deteriorates beyond humanly tolerable conditions, the question arises whether continued living does the sufferer any good.
If his mother’s ailment subjects her to intense pain and suffering, so much so that life itself becomes intolerable, then wanting to die, and having that personal right to die and escape further suffering, theoretically, makes her decision credible. It is at this point, when it becomes a contention of professional ethics and moral considerations on the part of Jack and his wife on the one hand, and personal choice on the part of his mother, that we are left handing on the edge of a dilemma. What matters; is it the quality of life, in which case she should undergo euthanasia, or its sanctity, for which she will have to endure the pain until death decides otherwise?
How far can people really go in determining the fate of their lives? Why can’t his mother be left alone to make the ultimate decision of her life? Her son and daughter in-law could not be so thick hearted that they can’t pity their mother’s suffering. On the other hand, when people are inclined to make decisions that a sound mind would otherwise question and disapprove of, it automatically disqualifies such persons from making life decisions, even for themselves.
It happens so often that suicide survivors regret their actions, and later conclude that perhaps it was hardy foolishness, anger and short sightedness that made them to lose control of their mental judgment. In this light, the mother could be making unconsidered decisions out of pain. Her children could figure that she is in pain and as such, not acutely conscious of her decision. When she gets well, maybe, she will see that she was wrong to wish death upon herself. But will she, really?
To make a suitable decision, therefore, demands that we examine the condition of the patient and the chances she has of leading a quality life in future. And, in the case of Jack’s mother, two realities stare at us: her sickness is terminal, and secondly, she is at the very last phase of life. We should not depend on her judgment to end her life. However, at the right time, when everything else becomes hopeless, the doctors should switch off the machines and let her rest. It is here that morality fails to shed light on the problems we face in life, and euthanasia finds its value. Indeed, human wishes and desires notwithstanding, there is a point in life when man should accept his mortal nature.
The argument by Friedrich Nietzsche in relation to ethics is based on responsibility. But responsibility is tied to one’s ability to make promises, i.e. people become responsible for the promises they make. But then again, to make a promise he needs a memory to remind him of the promises lest he fails to honor it.
Nietzsche also argues that people act because of their autonomy to decide on their own the standards they will uphold, and the promises they will keep. Accordingly, guilt is not suffered in the event that either by omission or commission, an event that portends injustice comes to pass, because the person did not make any promise of acting in any respect. Nietzsche argues that a person is only responsible for what he promises to uphold.
His argument implies that individuals are held responsible if they promised to act in a certain way or committed themselves to a given course, and then failed or reneged on their promises. Consequently, one becomes guilty of theft if that person steals after promising that he/she will never steal. But now that he is independent, master of free will and has the right to recognize his own standards, he can decide that a little thieving and pinching of public coffers is right. Before he withdraws this promise, he is as innocent as an unconscious toddler of any wrong doing related to theft. In the case in question, nobody is bound by any responsibility for none has made any promise.
At the same time, Nieztsche is of the opinion that punishment is necessary to instill a sense of responsibility in people. He refers to the Germany history that ““we Germans certainly do not think of ourselves as an especially cruel and hard-hearted people, even less as particularly careless people who live only in the present…our penal code shows how much trouble it takes on this earth to breed a “People of Thinkers” (Nietzsche 2009).
In this regard, I find the arguments of John Mill and Immanuel Kant very relevant to the situation. The utilitarian views by John Stuart Mill on the justification of human actions consider life on a wider perspective i.e. the greatest good, while Immanuel Kant’s argument for good will emphasizes on acting on the best interests of others. On Liberty, Stuart Mill argues for what is good for the larger community. He differs from Hegel in that while he (Hegel) tried to justify human action on account of beliefs and universal principles, Mill focused on the consequences of those actions.
His central maxim is embedded in the utilitarian reasoning, which favors the idea of ‘goodness for all, or the greatest number of people.’ For instance, it would be right if a bus driver overran a child crossing the road, if avoiding him would have endangered the lives of several passengers. In addition, Mill posited that individuals have the freedom to seek that which satisfies them, to the extent in which it does not cause harm to others. Otherwise, the authority of society should intervene to protect those who would be affected by an individual’s actions.
In this sense then, a jihad on others is not permissible however justifiable in the Muslim understanding of the value of holy wars: this should be juxtaposed with the Roman church’s Crusades in the Middle East from around the 11th century.
When the pursuit of the interests is overstretched as to hurts others, then even society’s authority should be limited (Mill, 1869, 134). For instance, we know that the war against terrorism portends the greatest good to all mankind. But how many innocent Afghan children must die as ‘collateral damage’ in the process? If hauling a few missiles in a crowded place would eliminate Taliban fugitives, is that justification enough to sacrifice innocent lives? Mill thinks otherwise. But Hegel would say that the absolute truth of the West, ‘defeating terrorism’ to protect innocent lives makes it right.
Mill argued that nobody has the right of correcting another person on what is good or right for that person (Mill, 1869, 138). This also recognizes the element of diversity in society, hence each individual is likely to think differently and desire different things. Mill says that “With respect to his own feelings and circumstances, the most ordinary man or woman has means of knowledge immeasurably surpassing those that can be possessed by anyone else” (Mill, 1869, 137).
Kantian ethics becomes relevant in this situation because it appeals to the will of the individual rather than the reasons given for or against it. Good will, he argues, is higher than even reason itself, because it is affected by neither motive nor consequences (Kant, 1998, 8). It appeals to the human capacity to make decisions out of one’s own volition, and the willingness of others to respect such decisions. It is good will that compels people to respect the wishes of others, for good will works for their best interests.
The Kantian ethics posit that an act is moral provided it is informed by reason and noble motive (Kant, 2001, 138). It departs from the utilitarian paradigm by emphasizing on the act itself rather than the consequences. It appeals to the human capacity to make rational decisions, which reflect universally acceptable rationales. In this case, none of the above actions would qualify as moral. By reason, you should not kill knowingly even if the worth of the kid’s life pales against sixty adult passengers.
The other tenet of Kantian thought is that emotions and passion are not grounds for doing a moral act. Accordingly, it is not moral to donate to the Red Cross because you were moved by TV pictures of emaciated and starving children in Darfur. But it would be right if giving out is a humanly act that by reason, all people of means should pursue.. As Kant puts it, “We have to rely on ourselves: we become our own author….our own authority, and we have to use and appeal to our capacity to reason and think” (Kant, 2001, 139).
References
Kant, I., Gregor, M. J. (1998). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. London: Cambridge University Press.
Kant I. (2001) Lectures on ethics. London: Cambridge University Press.
Mill, J. S. (1869). On Liberty. Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, New York.
Nietzsche F. (2009). “Good and Evil, Good and Bad.” On the Genealogy of Morals.
Preece, G. (2002). Rethinking Peter Singer: a Christian Critique. New York: InterVersity Press.