Welcome back to Contemplative Being. Last week I watched the
2009 film My Sister’s Keeper and it got me thinking about a rather controversial
topic, euthanasia. Spoiler alert, if you have never seen the film but plan to skip
down to the next paragraph but before you do be advised that the movie is not
about euthanasia, click here if you would like to see the IMDb page for it.
Okay, skip down now. The movie is about a family with a son and two daughters.
The eldest daughter has leukemia and her little sister was genetically
engineered to be a genetic match to the sick child. Unfortunately as of yet
there is no cure for leukemia so the only option is to manage it through
treatment so whenever the sick child was at a point where she needed some type
of donation the younger healthy genetic match provided the blood or marrow.
Eventually the cancer got to a point where the sick child was bed ridden unable
to do anything because her organs particularly her kidneys were failing. The
mother refused to realize that even with a new kidney the sick child would not
regain much quality of life and any improvements would be short-lived until
something else in her body failed. The sick child wanted to die and her doctors
and father knew it was time but her mother would not give in. The younger
sister could have donated a kidney but at the request of her older sister would
not allow her parents to make her donate it. In the end the sick child dies. So
now you see why I thought the topic of euthanasia would be interesting.
Back in October, 2014 the story of Brittney Maynard hit the
news stand and quickly became the topic of discussion on every news outlet.
Brittney was a 29 year old recently married woman in the prime of her life. One
day she began suffering from severe headaches not unlike countless others that
suffer from migraines except for her it was different, she was diagnosed with a
large brain tumor and given six months to live. As you would expect this
diagnosis turned her entire life up –side-down, she immediately went into
surgery but the tumor was so large it could not be removed. At this point she
faced a choice, proceed with whole head chemotherapy and the myriad of life
sucking side-effects that comes with it in hopes of extending her life or not
to undergo treatment and enjoy the rest of her time on earth and die when the
cancer takes her life. Brittney being of sound mind decided that neither of
these choices were acceptable, she wanted to enjoy the rest of her time as best
she could but when the illness got to a point where her quality of life was
gone, that was when it was time to die (Maynard, 2014).
Currently euthanasia also known as assisted suicide is legal
in a handful of countries and three U.S. states Washington, Oregon and Montana.
Brittney and her husband lived in California so in order for her to have a
right to die she moved to Oregon and went through all the hoops required to
qualify to be able to get the pill to end her life. She chose to use the time she had left to
travel with her family instead of living in a hospital suffering from the
side-effects of treatment. On November 2nd a few days after
celebrating her husband’s birthday she reached a point in the progression of
her cancer where she could no longer function. With her family and best friend
at her side she lay in her bed and took the pill that ended her life.
The ethical question here is whether or not people of sound
mind that are suffering with physical pain and have lost all quality of life
have the right to die. In considering this question there are two theories of ethical
decision making, utilitarian and deontological. Utilitarian theory holds that the
most ethical decision is to take the action that is for the greater good. Deontological
theory holds that the most ethical decision is the one based on rules and duty. Giving careful consideration to both theories
I believe that they both support an individual’s right to a dignified death.
Using the utilitarian approach this decision is ethical because it is in
supports the greatest good. Prolonging pain and suffering of the terminal
person and their family with no quality of life is not in anyone’s best
interest. Using the deontological theory the same conclusion is drawn because
of the duty to respect an individual’s life and avoid harming others. To
respect is to accept what an individual wants and if that want is to die with
dignity that is their choice and since it does not harm anyone else it is
affirmed.
I could never imagine being faced with a terminal illness
like Britney and her family was but you never know what life has in store for
you. The decision of what to do when facing such a situation must be incredibly
difficult but it has to be made and it is only right for all the options to be
on the table. In this country that holds individual liberty and freedom at its
core the right to a dignified death should be protected.
Thanks for reading, feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section.
References and Related Links
Maynard, B. (2014). My right to death with
dignity at 29. Retrieved February 1, 2015, from http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/opinion/maynard-assisted-suicide-cancer-dignity/
The Brittany Maynard Fund. (n.d.). Retrieved February 1,
2015, from http://www.thebrittanyfund.org/
Ben, I must say that your topic of choice struck a chord with me. I personally had to watch my mother wither away and die from three different types of cancer. Although my mother was very strong willed and had the urge and desire to fight for every second in life, the cancer won the war in the end. I agree with you in your assessment of both the Utilitarian and Deontological theories. In this particular case the greater good, utilitarian theory, was for Brittney to decide for herself. However, on the deontological theory side, that view is only valid in three states. This topic and the “appropriate” rules of society are based upon a religious foundation. It is from this standpoint that people tend to not believe that euthanasia is an ethical course of action due to it being against their religious belief. In my opinion it should be more of a personal decision and only the people that are suffering can say when enough is enough.
ReplyDeleteHi Patrick, thank you for your comments. I agree that the laws in place against euthanasia are based in religious ideals as are many other laws but I do not think that actions in contrary to some laws are unethical. That being said I believe that deontological ethics require one to act based on duty not necessarily in accordance with a legislative law. The Encyclopedia Britannica states in deontological ethics some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare.
DeleteHey Ben,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your blog today. The thing about ethics is that it is specific, changing, and situationally determined (Bowman,J.S. and West J.P., 2015). What one person thinks is unethical, may be ethical to someone else. The act of euthanasia is really a personal choice, but one that elicits a great deal of emotion. Being that we live in a Free Country, where citizens have rights to express their opinions, sometimes those people try to impose their opinions on someone else. Some of the time, that's how laws get passed, and explains why this controversial subject is only legal in 3 of the 50 States. I agree with your assessment of an individual's right to die based off of the two theories quoted in your blog. However, it doesn't always sit well with those who demand that their opinion be heard. We all know who those people are, and as the saying goes, everybody has them.
Thanks for your comment Don. I agree ethics is a personal matter and that is why it is important for people to be able to decide for themselves and not have the beliefs of others forced upon them.
Delete