Euthanasia Ethics Debate

The moral distinction between active harm and passive neglect remains a classic ethical debate. Personally, I assert that there is no substantial moral distinction between these two actions. Once we allow individuals to decide who lives or dies, we risk descending a slippery slope toward engineering a "superior" human race, devoid of any perceived defects. This raises a critical question: Where do we draw the line? Currently, society grapples with the moral implications of ending the life of an infant with Down syndrome if they suffer from an intestinal obstruction.

But what about the future? Will we eventually justify ending lives for conditions like diabetes, hearing impairments, or even less-than-average intelligence? It is imperative to explore these ethical considerations and examine the underlying principles that guide our moral judgments.

Ethical Considerations

In his essay "Active and Passive Euthanasia," James Rachels argues against allowing infants with Down syndrome and congenital defects to die simply because their parents refuse surgery. He asserts that such decisions are not morally justified. Rachels presents the case of infants with Down syndrome who require surgery for defects unrelated to their condition. Often, the absence of necessary surgery leads to their demise, highlighting a moral inconsistency. Rachels contends that the refusal to perform a relatively simple operation, such as removing an intestinal obstruction, is driven by the belief that a child with Down syndrome is better off dead. I align with Rachels' view, asserting that a child's life should not be determined by a treatable defect. The decision to let a child die due to a defect is akin to figuratively pulling the trigger. The love a parent has for their child should compel them to pursue life-saving operations, regardless of the child's condition.

Consider this analogy: if your child were born with only nine fingers, would you contemplate ending their life? Such considerations highlight the flawed logic in determining the value of life based on physical or intellectual attributes. Rachels further illustrates this point through the Smith and Jones analogy. In this scenario, Smith actively drowns his six-year-old cousin for inheritance, whereas Jones passively lets the child die under similar circumstances. Both actions result in the child's death, yet the distinction between active and passive involvement blurs when assessing moral responsibility. Rachels challenges us to question whether Jones’ passive role is any less culpable than Smith’s active one. Both actions are morally reprehensible, underscoring the argument that allowing death is morally equivalent to causing it.

Differing Perspectives

Bonnie Steinbock offers a contrasting viewpoint, arguing that medical ethics often mistakenly differentiate between active and passive euthanasia. She acknowledges the risks of surgery on infants but argues that such risks are worth taking to prevent a child's death. Children, regardless of genetic or physical differences, deserve a chance at life. While raising a child with disabilities may present challenges, it also brings opportunities for growth, patience, and unconditional love. The decision to let a child die should not be based on perceived burdens or societal norms.

Passive euthanasia, characterized by inaction leading to death, poses complex ethical dilemmas. Rachels suggests that passive euthanasia may be permissible in cases of terminal illness where the patient experiences unbearable pain. In such situations, the patient may wish to end their suffering, and family members might support this decision. However, opponents argue that even in such cases, life should be preserved at all costs. I contend that individuals in immense pain should have the autonomy to choose their fate, particularly when recovery is unlikely.

Policy and Ethical Implications

The American Medical Association (AMA) provides an essential framework for understanding the ethical boundaries of euthanasia. Rachels argues that the AMA accepts passive euthanasia while rejecting active euthanasia. Conversely, Steinbock believes the AMA opposes both forms. The AMA acknowledges the tragic circumstances faced by some patients, recognizing that some may prefer death over a life of suffering. However, the AMA cautions against permitting physicians to engage in euthanasia, fearing unintended consequences. Regardless of the AMA's stance, I maintain that both killing and letting someone die are morally problematic.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there is no moral distinction between actively ending a life and passively allowing a death to occur. Children with Down syndrome, or any other condition, should receive necessary medical interventions just like any other child. The Smith and Jones analogy illustrates that passive inaction can be as morally culpable as active harm. While passive euthanasia may be considered in cases of terminal illness and unbearable pain, it should not be conflated with decisions to withhold treatment from vulnerable individuals. The AMA's policies, though subject to interpretation, highlight the need for careful ethical consideration. Ultimately, we, as humans, must recognize the intrinsic value of all lives, resisting the urge to determine who is worthy of living. Every human being deserves dignity and the chance to live, irrespective of their condition.

Did you like this example?

620

33