May 25.2014
Euthanasia
Euthanasia and assisted suicide is controversial topics
that continue to be the subject of ethical discourse. Euthanasia is the
performing of an intentional act to end someone’s life who is suffering from an
incurable or intolerable illness. Assisted suicide is to provide assistance to
the person who is willing to end their life.
David Mathers euthanised/ suffocated his partner,
who was suffering from a chronic illness, by placing a pillow then a towel and
finally a plastic bag to end her suffering as an act of love. Mathers was
charged with murder but pleaded manslaughter on the grounds of substantial
mental impairment. This essay will evaluate the David Mathers’ case from the
ethical theory framework of ‘Non- consequentialist’ and ‘Virtue ethics’.
The non-consequentialist theory when considering Euthanasia
would look to the actions or the means of the action that led to the final
consequence of death, rather than the consequence of death. This theory allows
us to consider Mathers’ reasons for assisting his partner in ending her life.
Virtue ethics as a theory looks to the values individuals have within
themselves, and acknowledges that an individual’s values can override the rule
of law. Virtue ethics would look to the values and duty that Mathers’ would
have felt towards his partner.
Ethical frameworks do recognise that there are moral
grounds for Euthanasia and assisted suicide, while legally both are considered
as a criminal act in Australia. Even the justice system provides leniency for
assisted suicide as can be seen in the case of Mathers where he was given a
suspended sentence. Consideration will be given towards ways in which the law
could apply to provide individuals democratic rights and autonomy of being able
to legally choose the path of Euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Ms Eva Griffith of 78 who had suffered years of
chronic pain due to degenerative spine condition has attempted to commit
suicide by overdoes of antidepressant medication twice, but she survived ending
her life. The next morning retiree David Mathers of 66 euthanised/suffocated
his wife by placing a pillow then a towel and finally a plastic bag and ended
her life. The supreme court of NSW charged Mr. Mathers with murder but later on
he pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis of substantial mental
impairment.
In looking at Mathers’ case from a
non-consequentialist angle, his actions could be deemed as morally correct. The
reason for this is that the theory does not consider the final consequence of
death, but rather it looks at the actions that are taken to reach the end point
(Thiroux & Krasemann 2012) and does not judge the rightness or wrongness of
an action based on the consequence (Hughes 2000). Mathers could not tolerate
watching his 78 year old partner Eve Griffith of 22 years suffer from chronic
pain.
Griffith had been suffering long term from a
degenerative spine condition and had witnessed her mother go through the same
condition where her mother ended up in a nursing home. Griffith had made the
decision to end her life and had requested that Mathers assist her in this
course. The non-consequentialist view perceives that assisted suicide is
morally acceptable where the patient has made the decision autonomously and has
requested the help (Hughes 2000).
The non-consequentialist theory considers assisted
suicide and Euthanasia as morally acceptable. However, critics against the
non-consequentialist theory are of the thought that even if Euthanasia is not
wrong, it should not be accepted widely as the consequence of this will lead to
other morally unacceptable situations of killing. For example, elderly or
terminally ill patients may feel the pressure to proceed with Euthanasia, so
they do not become a burden to their family and also the health care system
(Hughes 2000).
The non-consequentialist Kant duty ethics view
generally holds that suicide is forbidden unless in certain circumstances, particularly
where an individual is unable to hold on to the essential features of worthy
preservation as a human being (Cooley 2013). Arguably when a person is unable
to maintain control over things such as bowel movements or the ability to care
for oneself, according to the Kant theory it is a duty to take one’s own life
as a duty to the self but also to others (Cooley 2013). It can be argued from
this ethical view point that Griffith was not at the stage that she was unable
to care for herself, and in fact no medical evidence was provided to show that
there was no medical treatment available for her condition.
According to the Kant theory Griffith taking her
life and Mathers assisting her purely on the basis of pain only would
contradict the premise of Kant theory on human dignity and that by killing
themselves as a result of pain would be in fact robbing the self of human
dignity (Cooley 2013). This raises an argument of whether what Mathers and
Griffith did was in fact morally right.
Looking at the case study from the ethical
lens of Virtue ethics however, allows us to take a wider view in assessing the
morality of Euthanasia and assisted suicide. Virtue ethics looks to the individuals
own morals and values for a more compassionate approach to the issues rose
around active Euthanasia (Begley 2008). Virtue ethics places great emphasis on
the Aristotelian and Thomistic belief that “morality and self are inseparable
and intertwined” (Begley, 2008, p434). Therefore supporting Mathers’ decision
being born from a selfless love where his compassion drove him to assist his
partner in committing suicide.
Virtue ethics looks to the circumstances
of the individuals involved in a position of assisted suicide and would
encourage us to look to the relationship of those involved, the life
experiences that they may have experienced and also the community that they
come from to understand the reasons for making such a decision (Begley 2008).
Griffiths and Mathers had been in a long term relationship and had witnessed
the effects of a chronic illness which led Griffiths to make the decision to
end her life, which from the virtue ethics perspective would support the
reasons for making this choice.
There is the further argument of a right
to die well as Griffiths has selected to do. The theory of ‘Euthanatos’ of
which the word Euthanasia has been derived refers to the right or ability to
‘die well’ and also to the theory of living a good or well life, until the end
of life ‘Eudaimonia’ (Begley 2008). It is argued that dying well is part and
parcel of living well and that the process of dying will affect our ability to
live well. Dying is an expected fact of life and is something that each
individual will do in their lifetime and the argument arises that the two
cannot be separated and should be seen as being intertwined; therefore, the
right to die in peace is intrinsic to living well (Begley 2008).
In further support of Euthanasia, virtue
ethics does not consider individuals in discrete episodes of their life, but
rather looks to where the individual is at that certain juncture of their life.
It looks to the experiences in life thus far and considers that death forms
part of the individual’s journey of life (Begley 2008). Griffiths knew where
her life journey would end up based on her mother’s experience and did not wish
to end up in a nursing home like her mother.
In respect of Mathers respecting her
decision, Virtue ethics provides support as it focuses on the interdependence
of people and the importance of helping one another in the quest of moral
standing of a decision. By assisting one another, individuals will be able to
help each other flourish (Begley 2008). Mathers admitted to the court that if
he was not facing the court as a result of a criminal charge he would have had
to face the suffering of Griffith while she was confined to a nursing home and
asking him why he did not help her when he could.
Virtue ethics also places great importance
on the person who is assisting with suicide to ensure that they have
sufficiently considered the point of view and perspective of the person wishing
to end their life. It is vital to understand the factors of the other’s life
rather than from their own experiences (Begley 2008). It appears that Mathers
had considered his decision seriously and this was conveyed through his full
and frank admission to the police and the courts on the circumstances and
reasons behind the assisted suicide. Mathers stood strong in his argument for
his reasons and seemed to display compassion and courage in reaching the
decision which was clearly against the law, indicating his resolution in the
decision (Begley 2008).
Euthanasia and assisted suicide is illegal
in Australia, and generally any person who is involved in assisted suicide
would be found guilty of murder or manslaughter in accordance with the Criminal
law of Australia (White, Willmott 2012). In Mathers’ case he was found guilty
of Manslaughter however was awarded a suspended sentence on
the grounds of substantial mental impairment and in consideration
of the reasons for assisting Griffith. This has been acknowledged in Euthanasia
and Assisted Suicide cases generally where the sentences handed out are less
than expected due to the circumstances around the suicide (Begley 2008).
Whilst we can see that there has been some
form of moral acceptance towards Euthanasia and assisted suicide, the legislators
seems to be slower in formalising laws in respect of this. The fear seems to
stem from the consequentialist ethical framework that the consequences of
allowing Euthanasia would give rise to the possibility of abuse and coercion
for people who may be vulnerable and end up being forced into a decision that
they do not wish to make, it seems to me that there needs to be clearly defined
circumstances that will allow for Euthanasia but the difficulty lies in
ensuring that these would be applied correctly and fairly (Begley 2008).
There is a need for reform around the laws
in respect to Euthanasia as can be seen from both the non-consequential ethical
framework and the virtue ethics framework. Elements of freedom and compassion
should be considered for people when considering Euthanasia and this would
support not only the people suffering but the people who would like to assist
them such as families and medical professionals. The people who do assist
should have protection from the law and also frameworks and guidelines for
providing the assistance (Begley 2008).
Ethically Euthanasia has been viewed as
being a decision that should be based on an individual’s right of autonomy and
that others including the government and medical industry should respect this
autonomous choice (Quaghebaur, Bernadette, Gastmans 2009). In order to be able
to bring about any change to the laws surrounding Euthanasia we need to
consider the majority views shared by the society as this will allow a
conciliation and consensus around the ethical values of Euthanasia (White,
Willmott 2012). There would still be arguments in respect of the Euthanasia debate;
however, there is a need for a set of rules that would support the greater good
when considering the right to terminate one’s own life.
Mathers’
and Griffith’s circumstances have been reviewed from both the
non-consequentialist and virtue ethics ethical frameworks. Both of these
theories support the view that Euthanasia and assisted suicide can be morally
right where an individual is empowered to make an informed and independent
decision to end their life as a result of suffering or terminal illness.
Assisted Suicide can also be viewed as a morally correct supporting role for
the person who is suffering. However, there is a need for the decision to be
considered and well thought out before it can be viewed as morally acceptable. The
law appears to recognise that this is a fine line by continuing to view Euthanasia
and assisted suicide as a criminal act, but still handing down more lenient
sentences in these cases. Law reform is encouraged, but within strict
guidelines and processes to ensure that the decision is made autonomously and
with full knowledge of the reasons and consequences. In democratic societies,
especially in Australia, the right to die is a difficult ethical question. It’s
upon the legislatures to legally support and observe the ethical frameworks surrounding
controversial topics such as Euthanasia.
References:
Begley, A.M. (2008) ‘Guilty
but Good: Defending voluntary active Euthanasia from a virtue perspective’, Nursing Ethics, vol 15 (4)
Cooley, D.R. (2013) ‘A Kantian care ethics suicide
duty’, International Journal of Law and
Psychiatry, vol 36, Issues 5–6
Hughes, J. (2000)
‘Consquentialism and the slippery slope: a response to Clarke’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 2
Quaghebeur, T. Dierckx de Casterlé, B. Gastmans, C.
(2009) ‘Nursing and Euthanasia: A review of argument-based ethics literature’, Nursing Ethics, vol 16, no 4.
hiroux,
J. P. and Krasemann, K.W. (2012) Ethics
Theory and Practice 11th Ed London, England: Pearson International Edition
White,
B. and Willmott, L. (2012) ‘How should
Australia regulate voluntary Euthanasia and assisted suicide?’, Journal of Law and Medicine, 20JLM, 410
.jpg){kind=link}