Why active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be legalised
Legalization of Active Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide
Moral Justification
Active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legalized as they can constitute a moral good if death is in a patient’s best interest.
Example: Diane Pretty's case, who suffers from motor neurone disease and faced a future of suffering and indignity but was denied the right to choose her death.
Legal vs. Moral Perspectives
The court's decision may be legally consistent but fails to consider the moral implications.
A hypothetical situation where a patient becomes incompetent: Doctors can withdraw life-sustaining treatment, which might foreseeably lead to death, yet similar discretion is not allowed to actively take life.
The moral equivalence between active and passive euthanasia emerges, especially when inaction leads to death whereas action might offer relief from suffering.
Clinician’s Duty and Patient’s Best Interest
Clinicians are bound by the duty to care; failure to save a life through inaction could be viewed similarly to actively taking a life.
If there is a consensus in the medical community that ending life is in the best interest of a patient, this should be recognized legally.
Arguments Against Euthanasia
Opponents argue that treatment must be deemed without benefit to justify withdrawal.
Critique: These arguments imply that the lives of severely incompetent patients are not worth living, which is a moral judgment.
Intent must also be evaluated: with withdrawal perceived as an act to relieve suffering, the care intention must remain consistent.
The Case of Diane Pretty
If her doctors would legally allow passive euthanasia, active euthanasia should also be permissible.
Legally and morally, people should respect patients’ autonomy to choose death.
Megan's ability to refuse treatment emphasizes the inconsistency in current laws preventing aid in dying.
Autonomous Decision-Making
Legal frameworks should recognize and support voluntary active euthanasia as respecting patient autonomy and dignity.
Providing help for patients like Diane Pretty aligns with moral duty when it is what they wish.
Conclusion: Slippery Slopes and Ethical Implications
Advocates must address the slippery slope concerns of legalization yet focus on clear ethical boundaries.
In light of moral arguments, the question arises: what is morally wrong with supporting voluntary active euthanasia for those competent to make such decisions?