De La Salle University - Dasmariñas

College of Engineering, Architecture, and Technology

Architecture Department

Euthanasia: A Human Right or an Ethical Quandary?

Hayley Marie Antoinette S. Garcia

ARC22

Jumel G. Estrañero (Sir. Stranger)

Ethics
 I. Prelude

Few topics have a deeper impact on the essence of human existence than
euthanasia. The intentional taking of a life to relieve suffering raises several multifaceted
moral dilemmas that go to the very foundation of our being. One on the other hand, it
forces us to consider the limits of medical intervention and the meaning of death,
requiring us to wrestle with the sanctity of life.

Euthanasia, on the other hand, forces us to confront the issue of individual

autonomy. Do people really have the right to choose how and when to end their own life,
especially when they could be in great pain? This is where the idea of autonomy meets
the threat of possible misuse.

II. Euthanasia and Its Framework

Euthanasia, or "mercy killing," is the deliberate taking of a life to remove the

suffering of the victim. There are two main classifications for it: involuntary and
voluntary. Involuntary euthanasia is when a decision to end a patient's life is made on
their behalf, whereas voluntary euthanasia is when a patient wants help ending their own
life. Euthanasia can also be divided into two categories: active and passive. Passive
euthanasia is the delaying or stopping of life-sustaining care and allowing natural death to
occur; active euthanasia involves actively inflicting death, such as with a lethal injection.

The debate over euthanasia is multifaceted and grounded in both practical and
ethical issues. Proponents of euthanasia contend that an ill person should have the
autonomy to decide how and when to end their life, especially if they are experiencing
unbearable pain. They also cite improvements in palliative care, which can reduce pain
but may not address other aspects of suffering.

Euthanasia opponents bring up various ethical issues. The sanctity of life—the

idea that every human existence has intrinsic value and ought to be preserved—is a
central tenet of the argument. They fear that if euthanasia is legalized, life will become
less valuable, especially for disadvantaged groups who might feel under pressure to
choose it because of financial constraints or social pressures. Some also voice concerns
about the possibility of misuse. It might be difficult to ensure that a decision is genuinely
voluntary when faced with emotional hardship or improper influence from family
members.

The gap between active and passive forms of euthanasia adds to the complexity of
ethical standards. While some consider the practice of passive euthanasia to be
acceptable, others may disagree strongly with active euthanasia since they see it as a
more explicit act of killing. This demonstrates the arbitrary character of the discussion
and the challenge of defining precise legal limits.

III. Analysis
 Euthanasia is a controversial practice that raises ethical, moral, philosophical, and
social issues. The sanctity of life and the possibility of abuse are concerns voiced by
opponents, while supporters fight for personal autonomy and a dignified death. It takes an
elaborate understanding of the moral, political, philosophical, ethical, and socioeconomic
concerns to successfully address this quandary.

The case for the sanctity of life is persuasive from a moral standpoint. Legalizing
euthanasia might diminish the value of life, especially for marginalized groups who might
feel pushed to make this decision because of financial hardships or social pressures. This
concern raises attention to the exacerbated ethical issues regarding the independence of
patients. Proponents argue that capable individuals should have the autonomy to make
decisions about their bodies and medical care, particularly in cases where they are
experiencing excruciating pain. A major issue arises when trying to ensure an entirely
voluntary choice amid emotional pain or excessive influence from family.

Philosophical queries worsen the situation. The distinction between life and death
becomes unclear with advances in medical technology. When is a person who is receiving
life support deemed to be dead? It is challenging to decide when euthanasia is
appropriate because of this uncertainty. Furthermore, the nature of suffering necessitates
careful analysis. To justify taking a life, how can we define and quantify intolerable
suffering? Does it only refer to bodily pain, or does it also involve psychological and
emotional distress?

Legalizing and overseeing euthanasia are a controversial political topic. While

opponents fear abuse and a "slippery slope" towards a diminished value of life,
supporters accept it as a lawful choice for sick people. It is important to carefully evaluate
how to govern this activity to strike a balance between individual autonomy and
measures to prevent misuse. In addition, public opinion is important. Legalizing
euthanasia may face greater opposition from societies that place a high value on
protecting life at all costs than from others, who may view it as a humanitarian solution.

Socioeconomic considerations provide yet another level of complexity. When

access to high-quality hospice care is uneven, euthanasia may seem like the only choice.
An ill patient may be more inclined to choose euthanasia as a means of ending their
suffering if they do not have access to pain relief and other treatment options. The
expensive cost associated with hospital care may also affect choices.

Euthanasia is frequently justified by utilitarianism, a philosophical perspective

that places a higher priority on happiness and reduces suffering. It implies that, while
maintaining patient autonomy, it can be an alternative solution for those who are in
excruciating pain. This is in line with the utilitarian value of honoring personal
preferences. As technological advances can result in impulsive choices to end a life,
utilitarians must also confront the possibilities of misdiagnosis. They also need to take
account for the possibility of abuse, since vulnerable people may be coerced into
euthanasia.
 On the other hand, deontological ethics emphasizes the significance of doing
morally and righteously regardless of the consequences. They think euthanasia, which is
seen as killing, is immoral and that all human life has intrinsic worth and ought to be
preserved. They struggle with patient autonomy as well because it is wrong to make
someone suffer against their will. According to certain deontologists, a doctor's obligation
is to preserve life, even when doing so goes against a patient's wishes.

The deontological perspective may have difficulties when a patient's want for
euthanasia conflicts with the obligation to protect life. Maintaining the integrity of both
concepts could be achieved by emphasizing the differences between active and passive
euthanasia. Certain deontologists may consider passive euthanasia appropriate for
situations, such as when a terminally sick patient has no chance of survival and life
support is removed.

IV. Recommendation

The complicated matter of euthanasia presents moral, philosophical,

socioeconomic, and ethical questions. It will take a diversified approach to address this.
Understanding and handling this issue require open discussions with medical
professionals, ethicists, legal experts, religious communities, and the public. Expanding
access to palliative care is also important because it gives patients a more comprehensive
range of options. To prevent abuse, the legalization of euthanasia must include explicit
safeguards including mandated waiting periods, impartial assessments, and restrictive
monitoring demands. Campaigns for public education and awareness are also essential
because they let people make wise choices about end-of-life care and the consequences of
euthanasia legalization.

Finally, as medical technology develops as social perceptions change, further

research and discussion are needed. We can adjust and make sure that our approach to
end-of-life care stays humane and dignified by accepting these complicated concerns. In
the face of euthanasia, this strategy will help in preserving patient autonomy and the
sanctity of life.

V. Requiem

There are strong arguments for both sides of the complex debate over euthanasia.
Making end-of-life decisions will continue to be a major ethical dilemma for people,
families, and society at large as medical technology advances and life expectancies rise.
It is essential to comprehend the euthanasia facts and the ethical issues to promote
thoughtful and careful conversations on this issue.

A complicated network of moral, philosophical, political, and socioeconomic

considerations surrounds euthanasia. There are no simple solutions, and promoting
compassionate and open discussions requires a thorough comprehension of these diverse
aspects. Only then will we be able to make sense of the quandary that is euthanasia and
guarantee a decent and dignified process for end-of-life decisions.
 We may comprehend the moral ambiguities surrounding euthanasia better by
examining these opposing ethical frameworks. While deontological ethics concentrates
on intrinsic right and wrong, utilitarianism emphasizes the results of acts. Neither
viewpoint provides a clear solution. This emphasizes the necessity of carefully analyzing
each situation, considering the patient's wishes and circumstances in addition to the
ethical guidelines.

The complex nature of euthanasia necessitates a comprehensive strategy. Setting

the stage for a more considerate and knowledgeable handling of this issue involves
emphasizing forthright conversations, increased accessibility to palliative treatment,
public education or awareness, and continuing research. We can guarantee a dignified
and compassionate course through the rabbit hole of end-of-life decisions by addressing
the ethical, moral, philosophical, political, and socioeconomic aspects of euthanasia.

VI. For the professor

To Sir Stranger who started the semester with confusion and left us with a
wonderful assignment: be happy, be ethically happy. To Sir Stranger who has shared his
extensive knowledge about ethics and his expertise which made every meeting seem like
an informal discussion, making us feel more comfortable with recitations and his class as
I initially perceived the subject intimidating. His goofiness makes every class more
interesting and engaging as he speaks to us with the language we use—slang.

I appreciate Sir Stranger for sharing facts and his thoughts about the Philippines.
His teaching style and friendly demeanor impacted our comprehension of ethical
dilemmas. We learned more from how he linked current events to our lessons, but he also
raised our awareness and critical thinking skills about the society we live in. hhis capacity
to simplify and humanize complex ethical ideas has been helpful. We value his patience,
humor, and commitment to ensuring that we understood the subject.
The things we've learnt in his class will stick with us. Along with teaching us
about ethics, he also instilled in us the value of critical thinking and curiosity. We are
grateful of the advantageous impact he have had on both our academic and personal
development.

We promise to uphold our lessons and try to live morally upright and educated
lives.
VII. References
Ana Estrada, Euthanasia, and the Burden on Third Parties | Blog. (n.d.). Www.anahuac.mx.
Retrieved May 21, 2024, from
https://www.anahuac.mx/mexico/CADEBI/en/noticias/ana-estrada-euthanasia-and-
burden-third-parties#:~:text=The
Assisted dying study finds common ground in complex debate. (n.d.). Www.brunel.ac.uk.
Retrieved May 21, 2024, from
https://www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/articles/Assisted-dying-study-finds-
common-ground-in-complex-debate#:~:text=Professor
Barrow, J. M., & Khandhar, P. B. (2023). Deontology. Nih.gov; StatPearls Publishing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459296/
Ebrahimi, N. (2012, May 24). The ethics of euthanasia. Australian Medical Student Journal.
https://www.amsj.org/archives/2066
Euthanasia is immoral and antisocial. lecture Spanish Episcopal Conference. Bioethics
Material. Unidad de Humanities y Ética Médica - Unit of Humanities and Medical
Ethics. (n.d.). Humanities and Medical Ethics Unit. Retrieved May 21, 2024, from
https://en.unav.edu/web/humanities-and-medical-ethics-unit/bioethics-material/la-
eutanasia-es-inmoral-y-antisocial#:~:text=III.&text=13.
Garcia, G. (2017). Issue 1 Article 4 Part of the Bioethics and Medical Ethics Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Garcia. Bioethics Journal Sound
Decisions: An Undergraduate Bioethics Journal, 3.
https://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1016&context=sounddecisions#:~:text=In%20the%20event%20that%20a%20self
%2Ddetermined%20death%20is%20the
Keown, J. (Ed.). (2018). The Value of Human Life. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge
University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/euthanasia-ethics-and-public-
policy/value-of-human-life/CCDD961CC90F0DEFD06EEE6FF0C42B88
Kumar, A., Mehra, A., & Avasthi, A. (2021). Euthanasia: A Debate—For and Against.
Www.jpmer.com.
https://www.jpmer.com/abstractArticleContentBrowse/JPMER/23986/JPJ/fullText
Mildred, J. (2022). Arguments for and against assisted suicide and euthanasia. ALL of CARE.
https://care.org.uk/cause/assisted-suicide/arguments-for-and-against-assisted-suicide-and-
euthanasia
Nathanson, S. (n.d.). Act and Rule Utilitarianism. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
https://iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/
QUT. (2022). Capacity and Consent to Medical Treatment. QUT.
https://end-of-life.qut.edu.au/capacity
Spranzi, M. (2014). Is There a Difference Between Passive and Active Euthanasia? Books &
Ideas. https://laviedesidees.fr/Is-There-a-Difference-Between
University of Missouri. (2023). Euthanasia. Missouri.edu; University of Missouri.
https://medicine.missouri.edu/centers-institutes-labs/health-ethics/faq/euthanasia
Where do we draw the line between life and death? (2020, September 6).
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/where-do-we-draw-line-between-life-death
Young, R. (2019). Voluntary Euthanasia (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Stanford.edu.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/