Essay Sample on Voluntary Active Euthanasia of Depressed

Introduction

Voluntary Active Euthanasia (VAE) of depressed persons is an act where a physician can take a person's life with one's consent. It involves the administration of a lethal substance, which helps end a person's life (Pavlovic et al., 69). A physician can also prescribe the substance a person uses to kill themselves, also known as physician assisted suicide. In some countries like Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Switzerland, euthanasia is legal, while in some countries like the United States, the legality varies across the states (Pavlovic et al., 115). Doctors mostly perform VAE on patients who are undergoing a lot of suffering or those whose medical treatments have not had an effect on them. Euthanasia can be voluntary or nonvoluntary. Voluntary euthanasia involves where one makes the decision to take their life. They give full consent and show they know what is going to happen. On the other hand, nonvoluntary euthanasia involves deciding to end someone's life by another person without their consent. Over the years, there is a debate on voluntary active euthanasia and whether it is ethical and morally right to perform the procedure on people (Pavlovic et al., 109).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Making Decisions

Making decisions regarding euthanasia is difficult, particularly from a moral perspective, because it is hard to face the facts that all humans will die and sometimes not voluntarily. In this paper, I will argue chronically depressed people and who are not terminally ill. Chronically depressed people involves people who suffer depression for more than two years. The symptoms characterizing these patients include feeling fatigued, sadness, feeling worthlessness, they have low self-esteem, and most of the time, they have certain behavior symptoms like oversleeping and overeating. People undergoing chronic depression and have no terminal illness should undergo euthanasia if they are willing to take their lives away. It is controversial when a hospital is involved in taking away life because one of the hospitals aims to prevent death. The life of a human being is considered very sacred, and taking away a human life is considered a bad thing in society.

When addressing euthanasia, it is important to understand the moral theories which involve utilitarianism, Kantianism, virtue theory, and the four principles approach. These theories help us to understand a case better and make proper decisions. They help us identify what is wrong and right when performing a procedure. Arguing for or against euthanasia for a patient with chronic disorders is complicated because death is considered evil in our societies. Emotions may cause commotions for the parties involved during the process. When looking at euthanasia, it is important to forego all emotions because, after all, we can not make proper decisions where emotions are involved. Arguing this case, I will use the deontological framework to argue euthanasia's moral permissibility. The deontological framework states that how the right action is, is not determined only by their consequences but also by their nature. It all states that in order to act morally, one must follow his or her moral duties.

Differences

According to James Rachel, in his essay, active and passive euthanasia, he argues that the difference between the moral permissibility of active and passive euthanasia is ineffective because it is not justifiable to take the life of an individual (Pavlovic et al., 20). In traditional views, the decisions made concerning life and death are made on 'irrelevant grounds.' Rachels argues that in cases where euthanasia is involved, whether active or passive, it is preferred that letting one die is worse than killing. There is a notion that there is a difference between those two forms of euthanasia in our society because they believe killing is not morally right, compared to letting die. For instance, in the case of chronic depression, there is no difference between the physician who assists in the suicide and the relatives who are there watching the process take place because, at the end of the day, it results in a dead person. Further argued that there is no difference between acting and non-acting person because it all results in a dead person.

When one argues that there is a difference between active and passive euthanasia, they are reducing the patients' autonomy. Diminishing patient autotomy makes it difficult for them to act as themselves. In the end, this devalues them and denies them the opportunity of being rational and making a decision about themselves (Pavlovic et al., 78). Looking at euthanasia as either passive or active makes shows the act as an option for death. These words are flawed because values are attached to them in that it is another way of showing a person can cause death. Morally, the difference creates a bad stigma on euthanasia. People viewing euthanasia as something peaceful is also an effect of the difference between passive and active, which is not true. Eliminating the difference will be very important in the future. The law should help society mark the difference between passive and active euthanasia.

Rachel also argued that in cases where there has been prolonged suffering, the decision on using active euthanasia could be used because it eliminates horrible suffering and lonely deaths, which can be prevented when someone decides to let go and choose to end their life. On this, I could not agree more with Emily on the case study, where she says at times, peace is where there is no suffering. And if suffering through chronic illnesses takes that peace away from you, then death can be the way to have it. Passive euthanasia can be more torturous than active euthanasia. In this case, active euthanasia is most suitable because it provides a fast and peaceful death. For example, it only takes two injections about five minutes only to complete the active euthanasia while in passive, it can take several hours. As a result, one undergoes a lot of suffering. There is a view per the law that passive euthanasia is more morally justifiable than active. Using Rachel's agreement, I concur with him that there is no difference at all, whether active or passive. When using a person's deontological ethical framework, the agent used should be analyzed to determine euthanasia's moral permissibility.

Actions

Actions required for euthanasia in chronic illnesses can be variable where a doctor can inject a mix of drugs or remove treatment as a means of death (Kavehrad, 57). The physician who does those either thing is argued as the agent of euthanasia—terming the physician as the agent diminishes the patient's role and their value in euthanasia. Arguably, the patient is the agent's source, and without the patient, there would be no procedure at all. The physical agent can be the doctor, but the patient is the true agent because they hold the moral responsibility and make the moral decision on how to die. In moral permissibility, the most important thing is the one making the decision and not the person performing the action. In Kant's principle, he sees the patient as an agent because he values a person as their own end. In the case of euthanasia, the patients are given the opportunity to determine their fate. Kant's principle is very accurate because human beings are given the right and are rational beings capable of making their own decisions at the end of the day. In case a family member or anyone besides the patient directs against euthanasia, then the decision diminishes the value the patients' posses of making their own decision.

In the case of non-terminal illnesses, the doctors should not be legally required to allow euthanasia in the hospital. If a doctor is against passive or active, I believe they should not be forced to offer patients the option (Kavehrad, 76), mostly because most non-terminal illnesses do not even lead to death. And if the patient chooses to end their life because that is what will make them happy, the doctor can apply utilitarianism. The theory involves doing what the patient wants and especially if it means giving them peace. In the case of religion, where, for instance, the doctor's religion does not allow him to perform euthanasia, they should not be forced to continue with the process. A doctor should not use their religion to justify what is wrong and what is right to the patient. When the doctor explains all information to the patient, they have no right to decide for the patient, even when the physician feels the patients' decision will do more harm than good to them. But if the doctors respect the patients' autonomy when proving the patients with euthanasia as a viable option, they are upholding the principle of beneficence. The physicians can also never know the real reason for patients using euthanasia (Kavehrad, 267).

Conclusion

Personally, I cannot determine whether death is moral or immoral because I strongly believe that it does not determine the moral permissibility of a human being. In euthanasia cases, the agents bringing it into action is what is used to determine the morality of the person. Inpatient odontology, there is a theory that says that one must analyze the actions first and not the consequences to determine an action's rightfulness. Humans have the right to not be used by other human beings for their benefit (Kavehrad, 88). If doctors feel they do not want to use their knowledge of willing euthanasia patients, they should not be forced to. Acknowledging people have important values is very important. Doing this helps us respect other people's decisions, especially on euthanasia, because they know their reasons better at the end of the day. Euthanasia is something very difficult to come into terms with, especially the parents. When one decides to end their lives for whatever reason, euthanasia is the most logical and reasonable thing for doing what they think is right. As argued by Kant, euthanasia is morally permissible when the patient represents the consent.

Work Cited

Pavlovic, Bojana, Danijela Tiosavljevic, and Danka Sinadinovic. "Bioethical aspects of assisted suicide and euthanasia in people suffering from mental health problems." Srpski arhiv za celokupno lekarstvo 00 (2019): 108-108.

Kavehrad, Christina. "Criteria for Active Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide." (2018)