Philosophy: The Ethics of Euthanasia

A Modern Take on Modern Suicide.

Introduction

I’m in a philosophy course right now, and boy wouldn’t you just love to have me as a classmate. I’m so close to graduating. Anyways, this is from some of the work in my ethics course. I found it interesting and really tried to contribute to the discussion. I have been slacking in this department, and I’m there to learn. So, why not pop off about my interpretation of the domino effect related to the issue of assisted suicide. I explain some of the origin on my position regarding the issue, but I ask more questions than make assertions. I honestly didn’t know there were any psychiatric cases going on. Lo and behold, there is some spooky data coming out of the Netherlands regarding some percentage growth in psychiatric disorder euthanasia cases. It is a very small percentage, but alarming nonetheless.

THE COURSEWORK

Euthanasia originates from the Greek, meaning, "a good death" or "death with dignity" in their day (p. 10.1). In the modern era, it is interpreted more as mercy killing. This has been particularly interesting to watch unfold with our neighbors to the North. Canada allows euthanasia under the framework of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). MAiD permits both euthanasia (clinician-administered death) and assisted suicide (patient-administered with provided means) for eligible individuals. “Slippery slope” or “domino” arguments suggest that allowing euthanasia will lead to unintended, harmful consequences, such as abuse, coercion, or a broader erosion of protections for vulnerable populations (p. 10.6).

Now, in the spirit of this being a philosophy course, I have decided (though, a day late) to try to contribute my perspective rather than just trying to regurgitate it, because, honestly, I think the domino effect holds some measure of credence here. I have spent most of my adult life navigating a number of traumatic environments. I helped pull a gunshot victim out of a tinted-up car and pondered how his friends sped away with such ease as soon as he was inside of our building.

As a young firefighter, I recall a scene we were called to due to a complaint of a gas leak. Only, it was a middle-aged dude who had died in his garage, in the middle of July. I inflicted pain on a young man who had been rushed to our EMD after a particularly rough brush with Lansing's Finest. He had tried to commit suicide by cop, and was met with nonlethal means first I assume. I'm not sure though, because he still managed to effectively open up his inner forearms and stab himself in the chest before they got him under control. So now, after all that, he's still trying to fight us while groaning--and once the ketamine wore off--shouting, "...just let me die."

See, I've been professionally involved with the protection of life whether it was doing my best to restore order to chaos, or to crawl through a burning building looking for someone. These pursuits, among the other uniforms in my closet, represents where some of my perspective comes from when I am discussing the idea surrounding mercy death.

I'm a little biased, because I've spent a lot of time in harm's way in pursuit of purpose beyond the self. I see all human life as infinitely valuable, regardless of condition and cognition. I have also spent some rather dark years in suicidal ideation fueled by mental illness and alcoholism. I understand being ready, as I was at one time. I understand being that exhausted; but I also fundamentally believe in every human being's innate human potential. The potential to take back one's life in spite of debilitating circumstances of mind and spirit. Also, I'm not everyone.

Most alcoholics will end up relapsing. We are few, and so recovery is constant. Some people, for reasons only they truly know, are unable to break free of such conditions. So, my anecdote mostly serves to suggest, through my works (author, new member of the board at Voices Beyond Assault, advocacy works, guest appearances, on the groundwork, etc.,), I have proven that one can break through the statistics. When I say, "if I can do it, anyone can" I genuinely mean it, and it molds much of how I view one's ability to overcome the internal circumstances associated with wanting to pursue mercy-death/euthanasia in general.

However, I am a very big fan of freedom. If you're paralyzed from the neck down, and you want to pursue euthanasia, then that is your decision to make. I do not possess the right to infringe on your ultimate freedom; the freedom to choose when they're ready to throw in the towel completely. Do I empathize a little? Yeah, I can see the mindset where you think you won't have a rich life after losing nearly all freedom and privacy. Do I still think it would be an incredibly selfish act to abandon those who love you most? Absolutely. There are famous instances of those overcoming such bleak outlooks, and though unlikely, it certainly appears to be possible for some to regain a relatively normal life under similar conditions. And so here we have some of that justice argument wrapped in the belief of innate human potential.

Where I am, mostly, is with the domino effect, with some justice, and a little sprinkling of fear on top. Just so we're clear, domino as in these things will do just that; tumble and crash into morally gray and/or outright reprehensible outcomes. I was looking at some data, and they aren't just assisting people who meet the circumstances I used as an example above. If you do some google searching, you'll find that there are instances of euthanasia being granted for "mental suffering" where it is legal. Now, my concern is this.

As someone who was essentially being paid to physically manipulate other human bodies through force, so they stop being bad, I can tell you that there is a particular moral shaving that comes along with it. Using compliance controls on grandma because she's just struck a nurse with her cane, and she won't put it down, and you've got to make a decision between macing grandma or tangling with grandma--it's just not my favorite position to be in. None of it is good, it's all bad, and unfortunately, you don't really have time to make choices like that lest you want to check yourself into the EMD. Such decisions, such as inflicting pain on someone who is fighting us because he wants to die have a way of callousing you. Hurting you enough to convince you to stop being a violent individual became a tool in the toolbelt. You become desensitized to those little traumas in an environment where someone's life was ending in front of you, or near you.

I imagine such desensitization to the plight of other humans is similar to the one associated with being a taker of human life in this euthanasia setting. I do not believe in the notion that they are impervious to the mental health ramifications associated. Unless we are dealing with psychopathy, in which case, read the previous sentence. My question is this; as these things are becoming more available in our society and others, will the proponents of such services champion those who are the life takers--those who have become fundamentally numb to those operating conditions and of the innate value found in human life? What will happen when those who offer the services become increasingly financially invested? Could there be a cost associated with human life under these conditions? Could it be then translated into profit, as it would be in those service providers best interest? Can't pay the bills that power the euthanasia chamber on ethics and ideologies alone. It takes that stuff called money. What then will become of the broader valuation of human life, between financial gains to the life-takers influencing public opinion?

Citations:

Government of Canada. (2024). Fifth annual report on medical assistance in dying in Canada 2023. Health Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-system-services/annual-report-medical-assistance-dying-2023.html

Thiroux, J. P., & Krasemann, K. W. (2016). Ethics: Theory and practice (11th ed.). Pearson.