Interlibrary Loan Request

"Euthanasia: The Moral Issues" by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum

Although the book discusses how euthanasia and physician assisted suicide has affected society (and individuals) in a more positive way, it also mentions the "wrongfulness" these practices may bring. When discussing the wrongfulness (chapter 11), the book focuses on arguments from three perspectives: nature, self-interest, and practical effects. I found these arguments to be interesting and slightly different from other "negative effects" other authors have talked about referring to euthanasia/physician assisted suicide.

Argument from nature: The argument says that euthanasia does violence to the natural goal of survival (the natural inclination to continue living). Euthanasia is "literally acting against nature because all the processes of nature are bent towards the end of bodily and survival and euthanasia defeats these subtle mechanisms in a way that disease and injury might not." I feel as though this argument does make sense, but should not be considered in all cases. Although our body gives natural signs to fight back to survive, a patient may be in too much pain and feel too defeated to continue to try and "fight." The argument should not be made in a situation where the patient may suffer severe critical pain and agony by trying to stay alive, rather than going through with the euthanasia process.

Argument from self-interest: This argument basically says that a decision such as euthanasia would result in final choices; the decision to die would result in death, which is not irreversible and cannot simply be undone. A mistaken diagnosis can be made, and a patient can act on the wrong symptoms given to them. This basically means that many people should not follow the practice of euthanasia/physician assisted suicide because the diagnosis they are acting on may be incorrect, and their self-interest is at stake. If the case is that an incorrect diagnosis is made, or is more than likely incorrect, I do feel this is a valid argument. In most cases, I do not feel that it is the strongest of arguments. In most, if not all cases, medical decisions are not made without research and time. Also, patients considering euthanasia would appear to have an obvious disease or problem, which would most likely mean that the diagnosis is correct. Today, the act of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide has many rules and regulations before actually being performed, so it is too hard to act suddenly on impulse or concern (which the argument is saying patients do).

Argument from practical effects: This argument follows the thought that euthanasia as a policy is a slipper slope. The book says "it could have a corrupting influencce so that in any case that is sever doctors and nurses might not try hard enough to save the patient." If doctors do not take the necessary steps to save one's life because they would just be "better off dead" would result in an overall decline in the quality of medical care. It is argued to be a slipper slope because euthanasia would first be done voluntary, then made directed, then finally to involuntary. Many psychiatrists feel these steps could lead to several "mental" problems being mistaken for medical problems (letting euthanasia and physician assisted suicide available to patients that do not 'really' need it, but just 'think' they do). This argument seems too unrealistic in my opinion because nobody can decide the future of how these practices will turn out; nobody can say that the slipper slop theory will happen for sure. I do agree that there are dangers in legalizing euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, but I do believe that precautions can be made and that allowing the practices could overall benefit many.

I do feel these are valid arguments in some cases, and I can understand why some people believe in these arguments (and these are reasons why they don't agree with euthanasia and physician assisted suicide). However, they have not convinced me enough to change my entire view on these medical practices, which is a more pro-choice stance.