Morality of Active Voluntary Euthanasia (AVE)
The question of accepting AVE and legalizing its permissibility attracts profound debates and arguments on the moral aspect, religious beliefs, and significance to the society. Should having a compassionate death be allowed to prevail in society? The need for a person to have a painless death is essential to both the living and the death. The essay discusses arguments for and against AVE to draw a clear conclusion on what as a researcher and a scholar would purpose to support. The moral question of AVE revolves on the preservation of life as an inherent human right to every individual in the universe. The article however argues in support of the argument for the morality of active voluntary euthanasia (AVE). Arguably, it is recommendable to encourage permissibility of AVE as death as a private matter and individuals should be given a chance to choose their own fit especially in the last moments of life.
Arguments For AVE
The main argument supporting the conduct of AVE revolves on the compassion theory which prefers allowing a person to experience a dignified death. This is contrary to prolonging the life of a person through intensive care and life support machines (Strinic, 2016). The use of modern medicine to prolong the life of a person induces the continuity of suffering to an individual denying them the right to die with dignity (Annadurai et al., 2014). To an extent, being terminally ill prompts a person to lag in the capacity to care and provide for themselves exerting a social constraint on the loved ones. In turn, this promotes the right of deciding when and how one should die while maintaining their dignity and pride as human beings (Ehrenreich, 1984). Thus, self-determination and allowing dignity is a core argument supporting the acceptability of AVE.
The advancements of the autonomy theory support the right of human beings to choose how to die. Just as there is an inherent right to life, every human has an explicit right to die. Death as a private matter should only be controlled and determined by the individual. Since choosing the application of AVE does no harm to others, the state and governments should not dictate or interfere with the explicit rights of an individual to choose how to die. Based on the human, social, and financial constraints that an individual is bound to incur in sustaining life, it is essential to permit AVE is such contexts (Math & Chaturvedi, 2012). Therefore, just as the law legalizes putting down of animals as an act of kindness in the instances they are suffering, the same privilege should be accorded to human beings.
The public policy argument in supporting the permissibility of AVE is supported by the fact that legalizing it gives the government the power to control and safely administer the exercise. Through rigorous vetting and debating, AVE can serve as a contagion of active suicides in society. The activeness of AVE gives a person the right to exercise assisted termination of life that attempting more traumatic means (Warren, 1973). As an aspect of the last resort, AVE proponents base the moral approach on ascertaining a good life and painless death that relieves loved ones to suffer a long-drawn-out-death. The extension of life should be left to the individual’s decision prior to succumbing to the illness. Thus, allow individuals to live a dignified life where they can control their last moments.
Arguments Against AVE
The core argument against AVE revolves on the devaluing of human life as an insignificant entity with no importance. The AVE undermines society’s resolve to respect, value, and find the importance of life (Joyce, 1988). The outcome promotes the erosion of society without social constraints, moral fabric, and long-term commitments to preserving life. The exercise of AVE negates every fiber of life preservation resulting in unwanted practical aspects of terminating. There is no justification for ending any person’s life (Locke, 1975). Life, however, difficult remains to be precious and should be protected at all costs. This is embedded in the inherent right of human beings to live. The fundamental feature stipulated in international law demands the protection and promotion of life. However, this approach undermines the fact that an individual is still in pain and a life full of physical pain is just worthless.
The existence of palliate care and hospice provides an approach to ease all pains in an individual. There is no need to kill the symptoms of uncurable disease rather there are options for pain-relieving guaranteeing a safe and painless continuity of life. The assumption on the capacity of the patients to choose how and when they should die induces a constraint in the duty of a doctor to conduct the AVE activity killing a person (Harris et al., 2006). This induces a human toll and constraint on the doctors to carry the weight of such high magnitude moral aspects. There is no moral background to support the committing the AVE rather weakens the society’s regard to life.
The conduct of ‘voluntary euthanasia’ opens the door to a slippery slope in the society with the possibility of involuntary euthanasia. The permissibility of AVE does not guarantee the killing of individuals under the pretext of the bubble of AVE. In turn, this sets bad precedence which threatens life in general and the future of humankind (Frost et al., 2014). The religious, moral, and practicality of regulating euthanasia become impossible. The difficulties in adopting such a policy induce a toll on the society where the people have deprived the right to live. There are no guarantees of truly controlling the process allowing the doctors to kill a person without their request and fail to report the activity (Chao et al., 2002). Thus, proves to be life-threatening and erodes the social fabric of the society in treating life as precious, valuable, and important. However, by restricting boundaries in the use of Euthanasia, the negativity associated would be addressed.
Discussion – Permissibility/Impermissibility of AVE
The permissibility/impermissibility of AVE does not essentially deter or promote its exercise. Based on the utilitarian or consequentialist argument, AVE is bound to happen were legal or not. This leads to the permissibility of AVE as a utilitarian approach to pursuing the greatest happens to the greatest number of people. That is, death through euthanasia eliminates the personal, social, and financial constraints to the loved ones who are bound to suffer continuously in the case of denial of AVE (Mathieson, 2013). The protection of the vast majority against one individual bound to die is essential. The essay supports the permissibility of AVE as a fundamental aspect to preserve the happiness of the majority.
Moreover, the philosophical approach evaluates “is death really a bad thing?” Philosophically speaking, death does not explicitly imply a bad thing. If it means saving the dignity of an individual and allowing them to experience a painless final moment, then, it is warranted. The support of AVE gives the legal basis of regulating the process since, either way, euthanasia is still practiced. By legalizing AVE, it gives the grounds for extensive scrutinizing of the practicality of the activity, attracts extensive debates from all perspectives; moral, religious, philosophical, history, practicality, and the future of human beings (Gajić, 2012). Thus, these arguments should find a common ground of permitting AVE as a critical feature of living a dignified life. As well, the legislation of the permissibility of AVE enhances the accountability of the physicians/doctors to exercise transparent activities. This is essential to discourage backroom deals and unethical practices where physicians choose to install euthanasia without the request of the patient. Therefore, to be subjected to the debate of AVE legality, a person should have an advance will and prior outlining of how they wished their life to end.
The key counter-argument to the permissibility of AVE as supported above relies on the society’s respect for the sanctity of life. In conducting AVE, as human beings, we defy and devalue the sanctity of life as a mere privilege with no importance. The AVE permissibility does not always serve in the best interests of a person, since, the illness could be cure with future technological and medical developments. To exercise the AVE denies a person the opportunity to fight for their lives as much as possible. Also, the divine power may prevail in the darkest moments of an individual. The permissibility of AVE denies the hope of human existence and promotes succumbing to the pressure of life-threatening moments. Therefore, provides a weak basis of support to legalize AVE.
In conclusion, arguments for AVE supersedes those against the Active voluntary Euthanasia. The question that intensifies either of the approaches revolves on how much are human beings willing to go in support of their beliefs. The analysis made supports the permissibility of AVE. Despite the downfalls of exercising AVE, there is a bright side of promoting transparency and accountability. This is supported by the fact that permitted or not, AVE continues to be practiced anyway. In this aspect, it is essential to practice AVE on the basis of law rather than in the darkness of the uncontrolled phenomenon. Besides, the philosophical approach supports AVE with questioning where death is a bad thing. Death does not necessarily impose a bad thing, rather promotes the value of human dignity and self-determination. Furthermore, it is critical to ascertain an individual a better death (painless).