One of the most difficult ethical issues faced by scholars, medical professionals as well as philosophers is that of euthanasia. Whichever position one takes, controversies always appear.
All the ethical theories that have been advanced in support of active euthanasia practice have not been exhaustive in their explanations (Shafer-Landau, 2012). Euthanasia has always been described as the voluntary termination of an individual’s life due to the incapacity of the body to continue with its normal functions.
To some, this voluntary termination of life is killing an innocent person while to others it is the right thing to do (Shafer-Landau, 2012). Both positions have all the arguments against and those that are in support of active euthanasia.
Nevertheless, the argument that if a deed props up the superlative welfare of every person who is deemed apprehensive and infringes nobody’s constitutional or civil rights, then that act should be perceived to be ethically all right.
This argument materializes to be rather strong in comparison to supplementary euthanasia arguments premises. This premise seems to be universal and take into consideration the rights of the patient.
It also draws on the natural, legal and ethical perspectives (Geirsson et al., 2010). This premise is also supported by the fact that it takes a more neutral position.
In support of the euthanasia action, the argument is that there are circumstances when the rule of natural life can be violated. That is, when the end is justified by the means (Shafer-Landau, 2012).
In as much as it would appear morally wrong to terminate an individual’s life, it would also be morally wrong to live one to suffer (Geirsson et al., 2010). Though neutral, this premise largely draws on the utilitarianism theory.
The perspective weighs the effects of the two causes of action. This encompasses either helping someone to die or to live. In other words, it argues in support of the right cause of action (Geirsson et al., 2010). That is, doing just the right thing.
Those in support of this premise take the position that active euthanasia promotes the best interest of all people concerned and thus it does not violates any persons rights (Geirsson et al., 2010). As a result, active euthanasia ought to be perceived to be ethically all right.
On the other hand, the natural premise appears to be the weakest of all the arguments that have been put forward. To be precise, if it is natural, it is right while if it is unnatural, it is wrong.
This premise is weak because it draws on only the natural theory of the sanctity of life. It does not take into consideration the will of the patient. That natural law draws from the religious and biblical support for the sanctity of life (Paterson, 2001). That nobody but only God has the right to terminate life.
In essence, it promotes the moral absolutes with the basic principles of life that can never be broken in spite of the situation (Paterson, 2001). The theoretical guideline this presumption is in contention with is the fortification as well as the perpetuation of life.
All moral, legal and ethical rules of not killing an innocent person majorly draw on this precept. In this sense, euthanasia always appears to be naturally wrong. The same principle outlaws killing oneself in as much as the patient would wish to be brought to death.
Basically, this precept argues that Active euthanasia is unnatural (Geirsson et al., 2010). Therefore, euthanasia is wrong. Whereas this precept does not provide support to the active euthanasia, it still offers the window for opportunity for those actions whose main aims are to relieve pain even though such measures may lead to fatality (Paterson, 2001).
References
Geirsson, H., Holmgren, M. & Margaret, R. (2010). Ethical theory: A concise anthology. Calgary, Toronto: Broadview Press
Paterson, C. (2001). The contribution of natural law theory to moral and legal debate concerning suicide, assisted suicide, and voluntary euthanasia. Los Angeles, California: Viewforth
Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). Ethical theory. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.