In considering the arguments for and against euthanasia one thing is clearly apparent: Euthanasia is a complex subject which can be approached from a variety of perspectives. This fact gives rise to two insights. The first is that the debate over legalizing euthanasia ought to be characterized by respect for opposing opinions which people hold because sound reasons can be proffered in support of either position. In view of this fact it does not make sense to attack the sanity, integrity, or intelligence of those whose assessment of euthanasia differs from your own.
To do so might result in a similar polarization of society over this issue as is the case with abortion. Polarization accomplishes little that is beneficial. In conjunction with euthanasia what is needed is the forging of a societal consensus to continue opposition to the practice or to allow for euthanasia according to carefully constructed guidelines. Because some degree of compromise is necessary we can anticipate that neither side is going to obtain all that it is after.
Once the euthanasia debate is resolved, both sides are going to have to live with each other as well as with the result. Civility and tolerance dictate that an atmosphere of mutual respect during and after the debate will be more productive than an atmosphere of divisive partisanship and hostile factionalism. A second insight about euthanasia has to do with fundamental ethical issues. The two most fundamental issues about euthanasia concern what the question is and which methodology to employ in answering the question.
There are several possible ways of formulating the question about euthanasia. These ways include asking: Should physicians abandon traditional ethics which require that they do no harm? Should society admit any exceptions to the absolute ban against euthanasia, thus opening the door to unforeseen possible egregious abuses? Should frail, sick and dying people be forced to endure protracted suffering? Should medical professionals be prevented from acting in accord with their consciences by outdated laws which prohibit euthanasia?
On the basis of these possible ways of framing the euthanasia question, it becomes apparent that any number of positions or “spins” can be incorporated within the formulation, thus swaying the analysis. The methodological task is related to the question-formulating task because, in a sense, the way one frames the question gives away one’s basic approach to ethics. A question dealing with physician responsibilities within traditional medical ethics reveals a bias in favor of principles, rules, and objective standards.
Questions which suggest that allowing for euthanasia under some circumstances would inevitably result in abuses of the practice disclose a pragmatic mindset and a basic distrust of the assumption that all medical professionals can be trusted to adhere to strict guidelines and that monitoring authorities are capable of preventing abuses.
The question as to whether or not frail, sick people should have to endure protracted suffering appeals to emotions and intuition and almost seems to require a compassionate response which would allow for legalization of euthanasia. Finally, by asking why medical professionals who favor euthanasia should be prohibited from accommodating suffering individuals who freely request it, appeal is made to the individualism and subjectivism which flourish in this pluralistic society and which resist the imposition of objective standards by people who maintain the binding force of traditional principles.
References
Jackson, R. L. and Murphy, K. (1998). “Suicide ruling protects doctors: Reno tells DEA to end threat of prosecutions,” The Record (Special from the Los Angeles Times), pp. 1, A6. Kevorkian, J. (2006). Cf. , Reuters, “Dutch Bring a Test Case in Euthanasia,” The New York Times, December 23, 2004, and Tamar Lewin, “Life and Death Choice Splits a Family,” The New York Times, January 19, 2006, p. A12.