Suppose you had access (legally or not) to morphine or Percocet (pain relievers)

Question

Suppose you had access (legally or not) to morphine or Percocet (pain relievers) or propofol, an anesthetic drug (puts you to sleep). What should you do if your friend pleaded with you to euthanize him/her because s/he was depressed, in incredible pain, and physically unable to commit suicide? Compare Sigmund Freud and his doctor friend with the Hilary Swank boxer and Eastwood manager in "Million Dollar Baby" or a Kevorkian case. Should we have legal euthanasia in NJ and other states or countries with something like the Oregon rules, Dutch rules, or not? Develop TWO EXAMPLEs and explain at least TWO DIFFERENT philosophic views on the question, and their relevance to problem you’re analyzing . Cite TWO BRIEF QUOTATIONS

Explanation / Answer

Euthanasia has been defined as the "painless inducement of a quick death".[9] However, it is argued that this approach fails to properly define euthanasia, as it leaves open a number of possible actions which would meet the requirements of the definition, but would not be seen as euthanasia. In particular, these include situations where a person kills another, painlessly, but for no reason beyond that of personal gain; or accidental deaths that are quick and painless, but not intentional.

Euthanasia—or “mercy killing”—can be practiced by commission, which is illegal, or by omission, which is not. A doctor cannot he punished for intentionally neglecting to administer some remedy or stimulant which might prolong life, although he may be accused of incompetence and malpractice. I shall consider here only euthanasia by commission.

The present situation is utterly unfair to the individual physician who believes that the relief of suffering is one of his principal duties. Many medical practitioners undoubtedly resort to euthanasia, but since they do so secretly it is impossible to say how many. They feel compelled to commit a technical “murder” even though they must bear the whole responsibility. That is the unfair part. Situations like the recent one in New Hampshire must arise frequently, and why in that case the doctor reported his act is difficult to understand. (Why, too, did he inject air instead of merely giving an overdose of morphine?) Bigots and sticklers for legal technicalities will always try to prevent or punish humanitarian action by an individual physician. Since the decision rests with him alone, the doctor will rarely ask for the consent of either the patient or the relatives. The mercy killing is therefore done furtively, when it should be done candidly, serenely, and lawfully.

None of the various arguments against euthanasia have ever shaken my belief in its truly humane purpose. In the space at my disposal I can refer only to a few. One of the most frequently heard but also most superficial objections is that the Nazis practiced euthanasia. What loose thinking! The Nazis never asked the consent of patients or relatives. There was no mercy in their killings, only expediency.

The contention that a seemingly incurable condition might some day be cured by a new medical discovery hardly holds water. How can the hopeless cancer victim or the imbecile child of today benefit by a discovery of tomorrow? The laws regulating euthanasia must of course be flexible, and requirements based on present knowledge may be changed in the future.

Another objection to euthanasia stems from the possibility of fraud and abuse. But if the decision on “merciful release” is left to a government-appointed board of at least three persons—for instance, two medical men and one lawyer, who must be unanimous in its favor—this seems a weak argument. Surely legal experts can devise adequate safeguards.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse S
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.