Main content
Course: Wireless Philosophy > Unit 6
Lesson 6: Euthanasia: Why do people disagree about the ethics of euthanasia?Euthanasia: Why do people disagree about the ethics of euthanasia?
In this Wireless Philosophy video, we’ll survey the debate over euthanasia. Our exploration will be guided by four core questions that shape persistent disagreement over when, if ever, healthcare providers should be allowed to assist a patient in dying.
View our Bioethics learning module and other videos in this series here: https://www.wi-phi.com/modules/bioethics/. Created by Gaurav Vazirani.
Want to join the conversation?
- So if I were to try to commit suicide I would be put into a medical hospital so they can try and save me, but if a patient wants to go on hospice they get that choice and the doctors will let them die? Where is the difference? How is someone letting someone else commit sucide unethical, but letting someone go into hospice, or stop dialysis, or some other medical help that keeps them alive allowed and ethical when that is letting them commit suicide? I really do not see the difference(1 vote)
- it depends on the type of suffering/pain that they're going through. say you have someone with depression who believes that committing suicide is the only way to stop the pain. well, chances are, things will improve, such as by getting professional help. there's hope that this person's pain will end without having to die. however, as exemplified in the video, some people are going through unimaginable agony that has no chance of recovery. in these special cases euthanasia can be justified: if the patient is going to suffer and die anyways, why not just cut out the suffering and let him die?
i honestly believe that it's also about your personal stance on the entire "right to die" thing. for instance, i personally think that it's not unethical to not stop someone from committing suicide, because they know what's best for them and i don't deserve the right to tell them if they should live or not. same thing with euthanasia: yes, it's ethical, because the patient knows what's best for them and they know what they're signing themselves up for.
there's a lot of interesting perspectives on this, and at the end of the day it's up to you to decide what you believe.(1 vote)
Video transcript
When is it okay for a doctor to
stop trying to save their patient and start helping their patient die? In this Wi-Phi video, we’ll explore some important questions
that shape the debate over euthanasia. Several months ago, Jack was diagnosed with cancer. Despite multiple rounds of treatment, the cancer has advanced quickly, and his doctors now think he
has only a few weeks to live. The treatment isn’t working, Jack’s oncologist, Tina, explained. It’s time to focus on making his
remaining weeks as comfortable as possible. Jack has thought about it and doesn’t want
this painful, miserable time to drag out. He’s lived a long and mostly happy life, and now just wants to die
a quick and easy death. Explaining this to Tina, he asks her to end
his life with an injection of lethal drugs. Should Tina be allowed
to follow through on Jack’s request to help
him die a “good death”? Or should such acts of
euthanasia be prohibited? A good starting point for
thinking through what a provider should be allowed to do in
euthanasia scenarios like this is to ask: Would euthanasia be best for
the patient’s overall well-being? After all, the main reason a patient
like Jack seeks an expedited death is his belief that he’s
better off dead than living a few more weeks
under such terrible circumstances. This also explains why he
thinks Tina should help him. As a healthcare provider, Tina’s role isn’t just to heal
her patients and save their lives it’s to care for their physical
and mental well-being <i>overall</i>. Indeed, Tina has already
shifted from trying to save Jack to just trying to manage
his suffering until he dies. Since even that’s not working, it’s worth considering
whether euthanasia might be the most effective and
compassionate way for Tina to care for Jack’s well-being. So is it? Some people believe life is such a precious
gift that no matter how bad things get, it’s always better to be alive than not. Others think the value of
being alive has its limits: sometimes the conditions
of life are so bad, that the benefits of being
alive don’t really help. Even opponents of euthanasia might agree
that the bad things that lie ahead for Jack probably outweigh the good. Of course, this accounting
depends on what qualifies as good and bad,
and their relative weights. And this is often
confusing and subjective. For example, one reason we might see little
good left for Jack, relative to the bad, is that he has no hope of
recovery and just weeks left to live. But what if he had months left? Or a year? Would Jack then be wrong if he
still thinks an expedited death is best? More time to live means more time for experiences
and activities that improve his well-being. Then again, it also means more time for suffering
and profound dependence on others. Maybe the value of
living counterintuitively goes <i>down</i> the
more time he has left. Also, how much does the <i>kind</i> of suffering matter? Is Jack’s well-being compromised
more by his physical pain and discomfort? Or by his fear, humiliation, and despair? What if Tina could greatly reduce
his suffering with medications, but they left him too unconscious to
engage with the world around him? Would this be better than a quick death? Wait! you might say. Why are <i>we</i> deciding what’s best for Jack? Everyone has different values and beliefs, and surely no one knows better than Jack whether living out his
remaining weeks is worth it. Even if he’s wrong, it’s his life! Jack’s doctors have to
respect his autonomy regarding all his other healthcare decisions: why shouldn’t he also get to
decide for himself how his life ends? To many, the crucial question is simply: Would the patient be an autonomous
participant in their euthanasia? If the answer is no, the act should be prohibited; if the answer is yes, it should be allowed. Now, obviously Jack has
explicitly requested euthanasia. But not every request from a
patient is genuinely autonomous. A patient might be so
overwhelmed by pain or fear, for example, that they can’t adequately comprehend their
situation and make a competent decision. Or they might be coerced
by doctors or family members concerned about the
costs of continuing care. Some people are skeptical that <i>any</i> euthanasia request is truly autonomous, given the suffering and vulnerability
that motivated the request. But most think that, as long as the doctor
takes proper precautions to ensure the request is
competent and voluntary, they can carry it out. And given the details of
Jack’s case, it seems plausible both that euthanasia
is in his best interest and that his request is autonomous. And yet, in most places, Tina would lose her license and be charged
with murder for fulfiling his request! Why? Well, we haven’t yet asked perhaps
the most controversial question: Is the proposed method for carrying
out this euthanasia ethically permissible? In asking Tina to hasten his death
by injecting him with lethal drugs, Jack is asking Tina
to <i>intentionally kill</i> him. And many believe that intentionally
killing someone is absolutely wrong, regardless of the net
good that might result. Every person, they say,
has an inherent moral dignity, or value, that must never be violated. On the other hand, many of the same people
would probably let Tina take a willing
patient off their ventilator, knowing the patient will therefore
die from insufficient oxygen. Why? Because here Tina would
merely be <i>letting the patient die</i>. Others aren’t convinced that the distinction between
killing and letting die really matters. They claim that helping
Jack die with dignity means letting him decide
both when and <i>how</i> to die. The final question to consider is sometimes raised even by
people who think euthanasia can be justified in this or that individual case. What still concerns them is this: Would a rule that allows
euthanasia in cases “like this” have undesirable social consequences? They worry that allowing euthanasia
in certain limited, acceptable cases will gradually encourage
expansion of these limits until it’s allowed for
even <i>unacceptable</i> cases. They particularly worry that allowing
euthanasia for patients considered “especially unfortunate” might send the message that
everyone facing similar conditions has a life that isn’t worth living. To properly assess whether Tina should be
allowed to fulfill Jack’s request, they say we must not only determine whether
euthanasia is in Jack’s best interest, whether he’s participating autonomously, and whether the requested
method is acceptable we must also consider
the wider social context and whether strong regulations
can be established to prevent society from sliding down
vicious slippery slopes. What do you think?