|
Handbook of the South Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Society (SAVES)
THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE: THE CASE FOR LEGALISING VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA
3. THE MORAL CASE
Are there circumstances in which it can be morally right to take one's
own life, help another to do so, or end the life of another person? If
so, what are these circumstances? ([3], Fact Sheet 9.)
We are not concerned here with the morality of acts of war, self-defence,
or capital punishment, which have been variously sanctioned by law although
someone's life is taken against their will. We are concerned with a freely
made request to die by an adult of sound mind who is incurably ill and
suffering intolerably, or who is permanently deprived of intelligent life,
with no prospect of remission. Such cases occur despite the best medical
care available and it is not foreseeable that they will be eliminated from
medical practice. Yet under current law it is a criminal offence to help
a person to take their own life, or to take someone's life at their request.
The case for legalising voluntary euthanasia is founded in three moral
principles:
-
Personal Autonomy
Freedom of choice is the hallmark of human identity. In a liberal democracy
we should be free to make decisions about our own conduct, provided we
do not do so to the detriment of others [4]. Laws that restrict our freedom
require justification. The question is not, "Why should voluntary euthanasia
be permitted?" but, "Why should it be prohibited?". Whatever suffering
or deterioration we may be prepared to accept for ourselves in the dying
process, we should not deny others the right to say when they have had
enough. To be taken seriously, the case against voluntary euthanasia has
to establish that its acceptance would cause more harm than results from
the current prohibition. This is considered further in Section 7.
-
Compassion for Suffering
This principle is embodied in medical and nursing practice and in the
Christian ethic; it is recognised to be among the primary virtues. A preoccupation
with the absolute form of the sanctity of life principle, requiring that
life may in no circumstances be deliberately shortened regardless of the
degree of suffering or the wishes of the patient, is not compatible with
compassion.
The alternative of letting the patient die by withholding or withdrawing
life-sustaining treatment shortens life and may do so in a cruel manner.
This is regarded as sound medical practice, is legal and is endorsed by
Church authorities provided the doctor does not intend to hasten death.
Nevertheless it is an inevitable consequence of such a medical decision
that death is hastened.
-
Concern for Human Dignity and Quality of Life
Dignity is an essentially human element in quality of life and its
loss is for many the ultimate humiliation. There are few who find it easy
to contemplate the irreversible loss of control over mental and/or bodily
functions which can be a consequence of the ravages of disease, particularly
with advancing age.
There is far more to human life than a beating heart, the drawing of
breath, or the reaction of nerves to a stimulus. Life encompasses self-awareness,
the ability to communicate with others and to pursue meaningful activities.
In that sense, to be alive is to have a conscious identity, to be a person.
When life no longer has that quality, but has been permanently replaced
by a burdensome existence it makes little sense to speak of a "right" to
life. It becomes an obligation if we can under no circumstances surrender
it.
These principles provide a powerful case for changing the law.
Those who oppose voluntary euthanasia have argued variously that it
is morally wrong, that it is not needed, that it cannot be reconciled with
medical practice, or that it will be impossible to regulate. Commonly voiced
objections are considered in Sections 5 and 6, and the issue of regulation
in Appendix A.
background reading |
references |
contents
|
