1. IN THE CASES WHERE JACK KEVORKIAN PERFORMED ASSISTED EUTHANASIA IN TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS ALTHOUGH THEY WERE SAID TO BE IN THE POSITION TO GIVE CONSENT, I STILL BELIEVE THAT KEVORKIAN'S ACTIONS WERE NOT MORALLY PERMISSIBLE.
FIRST, TECHNICALLY, THERE WAS A TIME/THERE WERE TIMES THAT HE ILLEGALLY PERFORMED MEDICAL PROCEEDINGS, EUTHANASIA IN PARTICULAR, BECAUSE HIS LICENSE HAD BEEN SUSPENDED FOR EIGHT YEARS ALREADY, BEFORE HIS LAST PATIENT, THOMAS YOURK. CLEARLY, IT IS ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW.
SECOND, I PERSONALLY DO NOT DISAGREE WITH EUTHANASIA PER SE. RELIGION TELLS US THAT IT IS NOT MORALLY RIGHT TO END A HUMAN LIFE IN ANY WAY, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IF EUTHANASIA IS A MEANS TO PROVIDE A TERMINALLY ILL PERSON, WITH NO MORE HOPE TO GET BETTER AND JUST COUNTING HIS/HER LAST DAYS A MORE DECENT WAY TO DIE, IF THE PERSON REALLY ASKS FOR IT, WHY NOT? I BELIEVE THAT IT IS MORE INHUMAN IF WE LET THE PERSON WASTE AWAY LITTLE BY LITTLE IN PAIN DESPITE THE PERSON'S WISH TO DIE.
HOWEVER, MY STIPULATION IS THIS: IT CAN ONLY BE PERMISSIBLE PROVIDED THAT ALL MEANS HAD ALREADY BEEN EXHAUSTED FOR THE PATIENT'S RECOVERY; SECOND, THE IDEA SHOULD COME FROM THE PATIENT FIRST AND NOT FROM ANYONE ELSE. BECAUSE THAT KIND OF SITUATION IS VERY CRITICAL AND THE PATIENT CAN REALLY BE SENSITIVE. IF THE IDEA OF EUTHANASIA COMES FROM ANOTHER AND NOT FROM THE PATIENT, THERE CAN BE A TENDENCY THAT THE PATIENT WILL GO WITH IT BECAUSE THE PERSON DOES NOT WANT TO BE A BURDEN. THIRD, IN ASSESSING THE PATIENT, OR IN GETTING THE PATIENT'S CONSENT, THERE SHOULD ALWAYS BE A THIRD, AND EVEN FOURTH PARTY INVOLVED. MEANING, IT SHOULD NOT ONLY BE BETWEEN THE PATIENT AND THE DOCTOR, THERE SHOULD ALSO BE THE PRESENCE OF THE FAMILY, AND ONE OR TWO MORE PHYSICIANS ASIDE FROM THE PATIENT'S.
IN THE CASE OF KEVORKIAN, THERE SEEMED TO BE NO OUTSIDE PARTY TO ENSURE THAT THE PATIENT OR THE PATIENT'S FAMILY IS NOT COERCED IN ANYWAY
AND THERE WAS NO OTHER EXPERT'S POINT OF VIEW ASIDE FROM HIM. IF KEVORKIAN AS QUOTED BELIEVES THAT, "HE CONSIDERS IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST PERSONS IN THEIR DEATH", IF THAT ALONE SHOULD BE THE BASIS, IT IS HONESTLY A BIT SCARY. DOCTORS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE LIFE-SAVERS AFTER ALL.
2. FREEDOM IS A FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT IN MORALITY, BECAUSE IF WE SPEAK OF MORALITY, WE SPEAK OF CHOICES. WE CANNOT DISCUSS MORALITY IF WE DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE OUR CAPACITY, AND OUR TASK TO CHOOSE. I UNDERSTAND THAT FREEDOM IS A CORE CONCEPT OF MORALITY; BECAUSE IN THE DIFFERENT ETHICAL THEORIES THAT WE HAVE LEARNED, THE IDEA OF MORALITY TOUCHES ON HOW FAR OUR FREEDOM GOES, HOW FREE AND HOW BINDED ARE WE IN TERMS OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR OUR ACTIONS.
THERE IS PARALLELISM BETWEEN KANTIAN ETHICS AND EXISTENTIALISM IN TERMS OF THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM. IN KANTIAN ETHICS, FREEDOM IS A PROPERTY OF THE WILL THAT IS INDEPENDENT OF OUTSIDE OCCURENCES AND CAUSES. IN EXISTENTIALISM ON THE OTHER HAND, FREEDOM IS CONSTRUED AS, SINCE WE ARE ISOLATED SUBJECTIVE INDIVIDUALS IN THIS OBJECTIVE WORLD, WE HAVE FREEDOM OVER OUR INTERNAL NATURE. IN BOTH ETHICAL THEORIES, FREEDOM IS VIEWED AS THE CAPACITY OF THE HUMAN BEING TO THINK AND TO CHOOSE IN A WAY THAT IT IS NOT AFFECTED BY WHERE WE CAME FROM.
3. MY PERSONAL MORAL CODE WOULD BE INCLINED WITH UTILITARIANISM.
Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:31 pm