Voluntary Euthanasia: A Short Essay

Introduction

Euthanasia is one of the most debated topics in the world today. While most of us accept the claim that humans have the right to life and the right to self-determination, the problem of Euthanasia gives way to the ethical dilemma of having to choose one right over the other. Those in favor of voluntary Euthanasia claim that human beings have the right to self-determination, and from this it follows that given the case where living (or rather the process of dying) becomes unbearable, it is morally justified to hasten one’s death. Those against it argue for the sanctity of life, and that it is never right to terminate the life of another person.

This essay will argue for the moral justification of voluntary Euthanasia. As such, a person suffering from a painful and terminal disease may be right in deciding to hasten his death if he finds his suffering unbearable. This critical assessment will draw from the thoughts of Glanville Williams concerning the justification of voluntary Euthanasia, and will attempt to resolve objections to his position as presented by Yale Kamisar.

Against the Slippery-Slope Argument
 

The complexity of human living obliges the reflective thinker to think beyond generalizations and to consider particularities. For this reason, it is not the case that every claim for Euthanasia is morally justified. Both Kamisar and Williams, while reaching opposite conclusions, both advance their positions regarding voluntary Euthanasia and not in regards to the form that would allow for the mercy killing of the insane or those advanced in age. However, while Williams argues that voluntary and involuntary Euthanasia cannot be argued for on the same grounds, Kamisar believes that allowing the former would provide precedence for the latter. [1] This, I believe, is an untenable position.

First, we must consider the fact that involuntary Euthanasia does not meet the condition of the proposed right of self-determination. On the other hand, we are not warranted to terminate persons who, despite their disabilities, do not consent to an act that deliberately ends their lives. The fact that some people (i.e. idiots, the elderly) may be a nuisance for us is not enough to terminate their lives anymore than killing a young and sane individual who happens to annoy many people. There are alternatives. For example, we can place restrictions on what they can and cannot do (i.e. prohibiting the insane from operating vehicles). Thus, we can arguably make the case that the act of killing someone only because he may be a burden to society is at par with murder. This cannot be compared with the case of a person who suffers from a terminal disease, and feels that he can no longer deal with the pain.

A second objection to the slippery-slope (or “wedge”) argument is that there are cases that go against the assumption that permitting one form of action will result in the gradual acceptance of more extreme measures of the same kind. Williams compares the possible acceptance of voluntary Euthanasia with the issue of sterilization. Many were concerned that permitting voluntary sterilization would lead to “a large-scale violation of human rights”, yet this was not the case in America. In fact, the acceptance of voluntary sterilization in America had an opposite effect from what the critics expected. [2] This also comes to show that Kamisar’s wedge argument cannot be supported.

The Patient’s Decision: His Capacity

While one cannot make the claim that everyone suffering from a terminal disease expresses the desire to die, we must nevertheless account for those who do. Those who suffer, seek treatment but still want to die must be considered. In such cases, we must not only consider their wish, but also that which gives rise to this desire. Upon their request for mercy killing, there is the option of probing further into the possible causes of their grief (i.e. physical pain, psychological effects of their disease, reasonable arguments presented to them). However, if the patient still wants to hasten his death, we ought to respect his decision, even if we disagree. The patient, unlike anyone around him, has immediate access (viz. his own personal experience) to the kind of pain he is enduring. Thus, not even a physician’s diagnosis can determine the meaning of the patient’s life, or the moral value of keeping him alive against his own wishes.

Contrary to this position, Kamisar holds that patients are often incapable of making a responsible decision, despite the fact that they voluntarily express the desire of hastening their death. [3] He argues that those who are drugged are incapable of making authentic choices. Moreover, Kamisar suggests that a patient “with a clear mind” still lacks this capacity given the effects of his pain. Based on these presumptions, Kamisar believes that a terminally ill patient is almost never in a position to make an irrevocable decision, such as one that results in his own death. [4]

Although we cannot ignore Kamisar’s caution concerning the irrevocability of decisions that involve mercy killing, it does not follow that the patient is completely oblivious to what he is going through. As Williams explains, Kamisar creates a false dilemma, since “there are cases where one can be sure of the patient’s consent.” [5] Therefore, even though we cannot conclude that patients always make responsible decisions, there are at least those who can and do regarding their own lives.

The Patient’s Decision: His Rights

Does this alone suggest that terminally ill patients who no longer wish to live ought to die? From what has been argued, this is not necessarily the case. Nevertheless, it is also helpful to consider the fact that the right to life has its limitations. We are all bound to die at one point or another. This is to say that when we make claims regarding the right to life, we are not supposing that we will life forever, but only expressing the reasonable wish to live a dignified life. Defined this way, it follows that the conflict between the rights to life and self-determination is resolved.

While doctors and relatives may do their best to help the patient live a dignified life, they cannot make him live forever and must understand when it is time to let go. Therefore, while doctors and relatives may be willing to commit themselves to the task of caring for the patient while he is still alive, they should also, by that same measure of compassion, respect his wishes. By this, I do not mean to undermine the value of the patient’s life, but only to affirm his right to decide that the severity of his illness has rendered his life undignified.

Conclusion

From this critical assessment, it follows that the right to die is not incompatible with the basic human desire for a dignified life, or the right to self-determination. While Kamisar presents important challenges to those who uncritically accept the Pro-Euthanasia side of the debate, his claims concerning the patient’s capacity to make an authentic choice are inconclusive. Moreover, the “wedge” argument he presents is not enough to convince his critics that allowing voluntary Euthanasia will lead to abuses. As Williams aptly demonstrates, historical facts have falsified similar claims, as in the case of voluntary sterilization in America.Therefore, while mercy killing may not be morally justified in every possible case, there are nevertheless good reasons to believe that a patient’s voluntary decision to hasten his own death ought to be respected when he can no longer endure his suffering. 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

---

[1] Kamisar, Yale. “Against Euthanasia.” Ethics for Modern Life. Ed. Raziel Abelson, Marie-Louise Friquegnon. New York: St. Martin Press, 1987. p.74

[2] Williams, Glanville. “In Support of Euthanasia.” Ethics for Modern Life. Ed. Raziel Abelson, Marie-Louise Friquegnon. New York: St. Martin Press, 1987. p.94

[3] Kamisar, p. 77

[4] Ibid. p.78

[5] Williams, p.90

A Reflection on Saint Benedict's 12-Step Humility Program

Hey, folks!

For those interested in Christian monasticism or spirituality, maybe some among you might be interested in taking a brief look at 12 steps of humility, which is the subject of chapter 7 in Benedict's Rule. In the Middle Ages, this small book was very popular in Western Christianity, and was thus transcribed more often than any other book -- with the exception of the Bible (of course). In this text, the abbot likens a person's efforts toward humility to the ascent of a ladder.

At face value, it seems strange (or perhaps contradictory) to think of the attainment of this virtue as one that involves "climbing." How is it a way of reaching new heights? According to Benedict's understanding of the Christian scriptures, God paradoxically exalts those who lower themselves (RB 1:1; cf. Lk 14:11, 18:14)

The 12-step humility program:

1. Fear of God
2. Submission of one's own will, and the commitment to live according to God's will
3. Obedience to one's spiritual superiors
4. Endurance through suffering
5. Confession of sinful acts and thoughts
6. Contentment with the lowest position and assigned tasks
7. Conviction that one is lower than everyone else (not simply in word, but especially in one's heart)
8. Living according to the rule of the community and following the example of one's leaders
9. Control of one's tongue, and refraining from speech unless it is necessary
10. Control of one's laughter, not being carried away by one's humour
11. Speaking softly, and mininizing the amount of words used
12. Living this way every day and in every place

The Abbot's Concluding remarks:

"Now, therefore, after ascending all these steps of humility, the monk will quickly arrive at that perfect love of God which casts out fear (cf. 1 John 4:18). Through this love, all that he once performed with dread, he will now begin to observe without effort, as though naturally, from habit, no longer out of fear of hell, but out of love for Christ, good habit and delight in virtue. All this the Lord will by the Holy Spirit graciously manifest in his workman now cleansed of vice and sins." (RB 7:67-70)

Something to think about...

Camardicus

The Self in Harmony with the Tao

Empty yourself of everything.

Let the mind rest at peace.

The ten thousand things rise and fall

While the Self watches their return.

They grow and flourish and then return to the source.

Returning to the source is stillness, which is the way of nature.

The way of nature is unchanging.

Knowing constancy is insight.

Not knowing constancy leads to disaster.

Knowing constancy, the mind is open.

With an open mind, you will be openhearted.

Being openhearted, you will act royally.

Being royal, you will attain the divine.

Being divine, you will be at one with the Tao.

Being at one with the Tao is eternal.

And though the body dies,

the Tao will never pass away.

(Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching §16)

The Gnostic Judas and the Jesus of the Church

Hey folks,

As many of you already know, much attention has already been given to the recent find and publication of the Gospel of Judas. It was lost for nearly two millennia, and now it occupies an important place within recent biblical studies research. Regardless of one's faith, the document nevertheless provides us with more clues regarding some of the ancient communities who called themselves Christians, and their beliefs regarding Jesus and those closest to him. Yes, the text tells us a few things, but what I find particularly fascinating about the whole craze is not the document or its contents, but the way our modern (or ("post-modern") world has received it. As such, I think that our reaction to the gospel of Judas tells us something about our culture and how we see the world, the Church and our relationship with both.

I think it would be safe to say that most Christians are not impressed with the gospel of Judas -- if not disgusted with the way Judas and Jesus are portrayed. They go against the Church's deepest beliefs and convictions. Who could expect otherwise after centuries of relentless efforts to affirm the basic doctrines they lived and sometimes died for? Besides, if the "Iscariot Jesus" really wanted to be liberated from his body, why couldn't he just poison himself? This is to say that even if we were to adopt the Gnostic hatred for the physical world, the acts of Judas are nevertheless superfluous to the whole task of liberating Jesus from his body. The whole thing is not only heterodox, but also goes against good reason. So much for gnosis (knowledge)! Anyway, the Church's reaction is no big surprise. On the other hand, others are so fascinated with the whole gospel of Judas that they are willing to buy into it. Some even feel sorry for Judas and how the Church has negatively portrayed him.

What generates these kinds of responses from the secular world? I think the simple answer is: the secular world. While the gospel of Judas was long forgotten in an old cave, the world experienced the Church as the powers-that-be for over 1000 years, coinciding with the historical period often referred to as the Dark Ages. Following this age, the world experienced the kind of "resurrection" that didn't really need Jesus, namely the Renaissance: a rebirth in the arts, literature and science. A rapid and fruitful development in the latter led to the rejection of traditional values and beliefs. This, in the 18th century, gave way to the Age of the Enlightenment. This important philosophical movement emphasized the unaided light of reason and empirical observation in the pursuit of knowledge. Talk about the kind of "spark" the ancient Gnostics could only dream of! As a result, the Church not only lost its influence on the modern world, but also its credibility in both theory and practice.

Much has transpired in the last 200 years, so it would be foolish to brush off what followed the Enlightenment period until now. Moreover, many in recent decades have gone as far as rejecting the modernist ideal ("post-modern" thinkers such as Derrida, Foucault, Rorty). Nevertheless, negative attitudes towards the Church constitute the ongoing trend among many people in the world, one deeply rooted in distrust. Who can forget the religious justifications of brutal wars and massacres, the period of intellectual despotism and the economic injustices? Unfortunately, many in the world cannot forget such instances in the history of the Church. What is worse is that few in comparison remember the ancient Christian creeds. What matters for the skeptics are not the beliefs of the Church, but her sins against humanity. As a result, one can very well see why the Gospel of Judas, as subversive and nonsensical as it is, draws the kind of attention it does in our times.

Camardicus

Idols Made of Words

Salve!

Once upon a time, there was a speck of dust in the universe. God called it Earth. With his words, He called entities into existence. As He called them, they appeared on Earth. They were assigned immediate tasks, and commissoned to faithfully serve their God-given purposes. They obeyed. One day, God's heart compelled Him to create something different. He thought of the perfect words to say, but could not speak. Speechless, He drew closer to the Earth, so that His fainting voice could be heard, but the words never came.

Now frustrated, God placed his fingers on the Earth and began to sketch his thoughts. He reviewed what he drew, and said "It makes sense." He smiled and placed his face upon the dirt and sighed. As His breath penetrated into the Earth, the sketch came to life. Amazed, God lifted his face to get a better look at what He had done. He called it "man." It was surely different, but nevertheless retained His image. He smiled again, and said that it was good.

It is often supposed that human beings were created in God's image. This way of speaking often refers to our distinctive virtues: self-awareness, the capacity to foresee possible futures and the rational powers to create concepts as well as tools for manual use. We can also speak. We are apt to create many things with words. The Ancient Greeks loved them. In the Market Place, most of the men were generous with their words. Others were slick, and actually traded words for cash. They were known as "the Sophists." They were word-pros! When they had nothing good to say, they still managed to make non-sense sound good. However, they could not fool everyone.

2000 years later, a Renaissance thinker likened our butchering of words with those of the ancient Sophists. He argued specifically against Aristotelian philosophy (characteristic of Medieval thinkers), but I believe that his words ring true for many of us today. He expressed:

"... the Idols [or illusions] of the Market Place are the most troublesome of all — idols which have crept into the understanding through the alliances of words and names. For men believe that their reason governs words; but it is also true that words react on the understanding; and this it is that has rendered philosophy and the sciences sophistical and inactive... The idols imposed by words on the understanding are of two kinds. They are either names of things which do not exist (for as there are things left unnamed through lack of observation, so likewise are there names which result from fantastic suppositions and to which nothing in reality corresponds), or they are names of things which exist, but yet confused and ill-defined, and hastily and irregularly derived from realities." (Francis Bacon, New Organon: 59-60 -- my emphasis)

Bacon brilliantly identified these problems in natural science and philosophy. I believe that this critique also applies to Christian theology, since many are inclined to think that we can paint a coherent picture of God by using words. Thus, human images, creeds and doctrines, with their sophisticated terminologies, are somehow supposed to come close to explaining that which is God. While they are helpful ways to talk about God, they often serve as obstructions. While they may also stir the imagination to probe deeper into mystery, words also tend to serve as the means by which we construct the idols we call God. Thus, the image of God as Judge can easily be mistaken for an old man with a hammer, waiting to obliterate those who step out of line. Used to strike fear to the masses, the idol of the Judge misrepresents God. Is God really as intolerant as many humans tend to be?

The image of God as Warrior is another interesting example. In the name of "God the Warrior", many nations have justified their acts of cruelty against others. The idol of the Warrior, with its swords and chariots, makes God the commander-in-chief of political and social oppression. There are many other images we can toy around with here. In the end, however, we run the risk of making idols with our words, and unknowingly mistake them for the Christian God.

Camardicus

Summa Wrestling: Divine Revelation vs the Limits of Human Reason

Hi, Folks.

In the past week, I've spent more time writing on Dom's blog than on my own. The latest discussions have gone from issues concerning communicating God's truth to the question "How do we come to know God's truth in the first place?" Many have posted their comments, and shared some interesting insights. Devoting this particular weblog to fundamental questions, I also hoped to probe deeper into the question of religious truth. Recent talk has got me thinking about Divine Revelation. One of the most popular theologians of the Catholic Church expressed:

"... the intellectual light that is in us is nothing other than a certain likeness of the uncreated light, obtained through participation, in which the eternal reasons are contained." (St-Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica. 1a 84.5c)

Here, Aquinas maintains that Truth is accessible to us as it originates with God Himself. Many Christians still hold to this ontological presupposition. On the other hand, even while granting the possibility that truth begins with God, we still cannot establish that we are capable of knowing every truth imaginable. Yet, many of us speculate over things that are quite beyond us. Sometimes, entities (i.e the soul, Heaven, angels...etc) are postulated, but cannot be distinguished from the gods of Homer. What are the limits to human reason?

Many in the world do not buy into the thought of a Christian God. There are also others who do not even believe a god exists. How can we account for their unbelief? Many have proposed that God reveals Himself to some people through Special Revelation (viz. the Bible, Tradition and mystical encounters) and to all through Nature (viz. plain reason and the five senses). From this, it is supposed that some are called to see God's light, while others remain in darkness. The latter, however, are nevertheless given enough light for moral discernment, which makes them responsible for their actions -- now that's a brilliant way to keep just about everyone in check!

However, the experience of being mistaken in the past cannot be easily dismissed by an appeal to consensus or common sense. The history books attest to our virtuous deeds, but also our sins. We are not infallible (viz. intellectually and morally). Furthermore, there are many views concerning God, let alone His very existence. This plurality of opinions also warrants caution in regards to tracing human reason down to God Himself. Thus, if truths stem from one Source and are accessible to many of us, how do we account for so many worldviews?

Something to think about...

Camardicus

So, I'm a Bit of a Skeptic...

Hi and welcome to all!

A wise man once said, "reading and writing is the business of philosophy." In its humble beginnings, the Western philosophical tradition began in the market place, where all could share their thoughts verbally. It was not long, however, before thinkers began writing treatises that often went against widely accepted worldviews. "Common sense" simply would not do. While many things seemed self-evident to most people, philosophers persisted further.

While we have come a long way since the time of Thales (600 BCE), philosophy lives on as a discipline whose stock-and-trade consists of critically examining life's most basic questions: What exists? What constitutes true knowledge? What is good? What is beautiful? These matters have given rise to a variety of responses over the course of history. Many theories were forgotten, and others were simply accepted as self-evident. While it is perhaps undesirable to spend our lives juggling between "-isms", we nevertheless wrestle with tough questions when our experiences do not fit our basic worldview. The philosopher, one might add, will go as far as questioning his own experience.

While knowledge grows with experience, the lens by which we view the world give shape to these experiences, and how we understand them. Thus, Kant rightly points out that while experience is a necessary condition for knowledge (for to postulate in a world beyond human experience is nonsense), it does not follow that the latter results from experience. This, in turn, leaves the critical thinker with the painful task of organizing his thoughts from empirical data in order to create that which is most desired: a unified picture of the world drawn from an otherwise meaningless universe.

I hope this blog provides us with the kind of intellectual fuel that pushes us forward in our inquiry for truth, reality, beauty and meaning. While we are all very well acquainted with such ideas, talking about them is what makes them interesting. As such, philosophical discourse reveals the intellectual difficulties that arise from what would otherwise appear as "common sense." With that thought, I leave you with a quote:

"It is indeed a great gift of God, to possess right, or (as they now call it) plain common sense. But this common sense must be shown practically, by well-considered and reasonable thoughts and words, not by appealing to it as an oracle, when no rational justification can be advanced. To appeal to common sense, when insight and science fail, and no sooner-this is one of the subtle discoveries of modern times, by means of which the most superficial ranter can safely enter the lists with the most thorough thinker, and hold his own. But as long as a particle of insight remains, no one would think of having recourse to this subterfuge." (Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics)

May the peace of that which is called God be with you.

Camardicus