The Circle of Life

One does not fear death. One fears what they may have to go through to get there. The aversion to suffering and the intrinsic inclination toward self preservation remain pervasive within the human psyche, and this serves to influence the direct actions and decisions we leverage through our own agency.  In the face of unrelenting suffering that surpasses the limits of our endurance,  especially as it pertains to biomedicine and scientific advancement, the contemplation of euthanasia often emerges as a favourable choice to incurable patients. It is important to distinguish that this choice is predominantly born not out of recklessness or malignity but a result from the depths of profound contemplation, ethical introspection, and emotional turmoil to align personal values with the harsh reality of insurmountable suffering. 

Euthanasia is defined as the practice of intentionally ending the life of a patient afflicted with an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. Many countries prohibit this form of assisted death, considering it  punishable by law, yet some states that have decriminalised and actively legalised this process include Switzerland, The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, all of which outline specific circumstances and stringent guidelines to accompany these changes. The question at the heart of this discourse, however, is whether the individual choice to be euthanized or the governmental choice to legalise the process holds moral validity. You will find a dichotomy between autonomy and natural order arises ; a dilemma that is of great significance to me. From my previous works as well as my debating experience it is indeed rational to conclude that I greatly favour agency and liberty to speech and action above all other principles, however upon thought, presenting a case to you whereby this argument brings a series of extensive flaws is a most fascinating prospect. Remember, though powerful as we are, we humans are mere mortals, and entrusting us with the decision to life or death may well be greatly beyond our scope. 

If one operates under a utilitarian principle, the reduction of suffering and maximisation of overall happiness or well-being is of utmost priority when considering  governmental legislation or action in general to be moral. Indeed the father of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, is a proponent for this idea. He might argue that if euthanasia has the capacity to alleviate excruciating pain caused by terminal illnesses and that the relief of said pain would produce an overall net happiness or pleasure to the individual than to live and bear the weight of it, then euthanasia could be morally justifiable. It is important to remember that the suffering of patients who consider euthanasia is not solely limited to pain in the corporeal sense but depression, fearing loss of control or dignity, feeling a burden to relatives, or a dislike of being dependent as well, which causes an additional psychological turmoil to their suffering. Conversely, the suffering of relatives at the loss of a family member due to euthanasia must be factored into this utilitarian equation, as naturally the passing of their family and the burden of grief consequently would not bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Indeed, this may be the case but Bentham does account for this and posits a qualitative calculation, assessing the balance of pleasure and pain involved in the situation. If the relief of suffering for the individual and their loved ones outweighs the pain of grief following the patient’s loss of life, Bentham’s utilitarianism would suggest euthanasia is strongly moral. However, aside from the paradox  that we cannot model happiness as a calculation,  I would argue that there is a fundamental component of this discourse that is missing : whilst it is indeed significant to assess how one’s decisions may impact those around them, the question remains : must we? Can our own agency and free will be enough to morally justify decisions? From a libertarian angle (a moral and political philosophy that places high value on individual freedom, autonomy and minimal government intervention in personal matters), one had the right to make decisions about one's own body and life without external interference (self determination). Under this narrative, laws prohibiting euthanasia could be seen as a fundamental infringement on personal liberty. Libertarianism may support the idea that individuals have the right to use their agency to determine how they die and that the government or any external authority should not interfere in an individual’s choice to undergo euthanasia if they have made a rational and voluntary choice to do so wherein they possess the capacity to give consent. Consequently, one could argue that to criminalise or fault euthanasia is undermining the concept of free will, autonomy and liberty. 

However, it can be argued that the principle of euthanasia itself is in violation of natural law : the philosophical ideology that adamantly defends and values the sanctity of human life. It operates under a teleological framework under which human existence is emphasised to have an inherent purpose or telos for example the innate desire to seek fulfilment, success, happiness and love. In light of this perspective, human existence is considered to be fundamentally good and hence worthy of preservation under any circumstances. Indeed natural law operates under the idea that “every human life is sacred, because every human person is sacred…from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death.” As a result, euthanasia is directly in conflict with natural law as it does not conform to the established, inevitable process of life and death.The hubris of man in violation of natural law is also pertinent: why do we humans in leveraging our right to autonomy assume the omnipotent right to decide when life can end, whether or not it is valuable, who it is valuable for and who is entitled or privileged enough to make that choice? Naturally, under a societal framework, decisions over euthanasia give rise to exploitative potential : healthcare institutions might have a conflict of interest when it comes to decisions about euthanasia as financial burdens and the pressure to free up hospital beds might coerce the decision-making process in ways that do not prioritise the best interests of the patient ; often this conflict of interest also comes from within the individual whereby the patient’s decision is coerced by emotional distress, financial struggle or by perceptions of being a burden to family, hence an ‘autonomous’ decision may not truly be free to begin with. By leaving the power of life and death in the hands of corporate institutions or even to the average citizen, we are in effect assuming the role of a creator. 

Moreover, if we revisit the earlier argument of the libertarian’s approach to euthanasia, we learn that an individual possesses the free will to undergo euthanasia when they have the capacity to give consent. However this fails to account for the large percentage of patients in permanent coma or unconscious for whom euthanasia is mainly considered for. As they are not in a state whereby they can understand the information given to them and can use it to make an informed decision, the consent and freedom of choice of these patients may be handed over to their medical practitioners or immediate family instead. Now, if this becomes the case, there is a prodigious issue with euthanasia as we now create a hierarchical system of autonomy where one person’s liberty is more or less valid than the other ;  that an external entity with their own agency would be justified in approving  or condoning taking the patient’s life, thereby stripping them of their right to personal liberty and self preservation. 

Whilst I am one of the biggest proponents for the autonomy of humans and their fundamental right to exercise their freedom, I also know their nature. I know that humans believe themselves to be all knowledgeable, all powerful, all worthy yet still all virtuous and I know that this is dangerous. I know that humans relish in manipulating the boundaries of nature whether that be through deciding when life may end through euthanasia to venturing research into immortalising man through cryonics or breeding a race of superhumans through genetic modification and I know this has the power to be abused. As a result I must sacrifice the idea of individual autonomy at the feet of the laws of nature as fundamentally our world operates on balance. It is the reason why fire exists to neutralise water and why when organisms die they replenish the soil to give life to new beings. It is important to accept natural life and death with dignity and acknowledge we are part of a greater equation and system of harmony : a circle of life.