Ethics

Lady Campbell, a bedridden woman suffering from muscular atrophy, commented on a TV interview
If I should ever seek death  there are several times when my progressive condition challenges me  I want to guarantee that you are there supporting my continued life and its value. The last thing I want is for you to give up on me, especially when I need you most (quoted in Evander 2007).

The right to life guarantees every person the legal and moral protection against the termination of ones life by another person through whatever means. Every human being has the right to live hisher life to the fullest, enjoying all the possible accompanying privileges. However, when the quality of live deteriorates beyond humanly tolerable conditions, the question arises whether continued living does the sufferer any good. If Lady Campbells ailment subjects her to intense pain and suffering, so much so that life itself becomes intolerable, then wanting to die, and having that personal right to die a personal death, theoretically, makes active euthanasia not only a choice, but also the only alternative.  If her condition renders her both physically and mentally inactive to the extent of making her unconscious of life and life support futile, then physician assisted euthanasia gets some legal weight in countries where the practice is legalized. It is at this point, when it becomes both legally and ethically necessary to end life that the conflict arises between medical practice and personal choice on the one hand, and the right to life on the other. While the former focuses on the quality of life, the latter emphasizes on its sacredness and sanctity.

How far can one really go in determining hisher fate Why cant Ramirez be left alone to make the ultimate decision of her life Are people so rocky hearted, and the ethical trappings so insensitive, that they cant grant a dying person her last wish Not quite really, I guess for, when people are inclined to make decisions that a sound mind would otherwise question and disapprove of , it automatically disqualifies such persons from making life decisions, even for themselves. It happens so often that suicide survivors regret their actions, and later conclude that perhaps it wash hardy foolishness, anger and short sightedness that made them to lose control of their mental judgment. In this light, Ramirez could be making unconsidered decisions out of pain. Her children could figure that she is in pain and as such, not acutely conscious of her decision. When she gets well, maybe, she will see that she was wrong to wish death upon herself. Ender (2007) casts doubt on the competence of such terminally ill patients to make right judgments given the fact that their mental capacity is inhibited. Even if they may be reasonable in light of the circumstances i.e. pain, they could not pass as suitable in view of the implications.

Ramirez is 88 years old, terminally ill, and undergoing very painful experiences and she wishes to bring it to an end through death. Understandable think of the many times your have experienced pain, either emotional or physical, and you had inwardly thought, I wish I could die. We are talking about bone cancer- pain that hurts to the bone, literally. If Ramirez doesnt wish to live a minute more, then we know why she simply cant stand it, because it is so painful and unbearable. So maybe she has- in sound mind perhaps, decided that death is the most welcome event in her present situation. We cant deny her that, can we Human feelings of compassion, love and pity can compel family members to go into any length to ease the pain. Gay-Williams (1979) observe that euthanasia under such circumstances is justified. If the person or others might be better off, then it is alright to carry out euthanasia. Therefore, active suicide will be okay on the part of Ramirez since it will end her pain and suffering.

Yet again, it becomes equally painful to those concerned - though in a different sense- when death is the only way of dealing with the pain. Love, close relations and shared experiences make it impossible to willingly let a loved one slip off. Under such circumstances, you cant tell the physician to administer the fatal injection simply because it was too painful to watch her suffer so painfully.

Up to this point, Ramirezs son, daughter-in-law and granddaughter reason on a common understanding they value her to the extent that even when life makes no sense to her, they still want her to live. The echo of Lady Campbells words reverberates again The last thing I want is for you to give up on me, especially when I need you most. So, Mrs. Ramirez, your children just dont intend to give up on you- not yet. It could be that they understand the pain and suffering caused by the illness, but giving to death is even more painful. Similarly, it is possible that they could live with the guilt of having killed their mother if they willingly commissioned the euthanasia. Their conscience will prick them every time they think about it, with the doubt that she could have lived, if only they had been patient a day more, and waited a little longer.

Age could be a factor in their difference of opinion. At 88, she has reached a point where even if she were in good health, she would be waiting for death anyway. Her potential of a future, as one might argue for an embryo threatened with an abortion, is not that high like that of a fetus that will grow. So, Ramirez is seeing life from a perspective totally different from that of her son, daughter in-law and grandchild. It couldnt make much sense to live in pain until she died of old age, just a few days later

It then emerges that her daughter in-law and grandchild would not see her suffer until she dropped dead. If it comes to such a point that the shadows of death overtake her, then a physician-assisted suicide would make sense for then, she wouldnt be conscious of her condition. If that not be the case, then it translates that the doctors would have figured out that a second more wont make any difference in her life. Their stand seems to deny her some portion of her right to life, but then under circumstances where the difference between death and life is so thin that in reality, there is no difference at all. Being dead and clinging to life unconsciously through life supports is, one could say, the same thing actually.

The son is an M.D, reportedly. So perhaps he understands the forays of medicine and science more than the rest. He believes, almost convinced, presumably, that it is possible to treat her condition. With this scientific perspective, it is only reasonable that he could object to any form of euthanasia. His mother should live until death itself defeats medicine. It is a sound and pro-life argument that accords the sick woman her right to life at all costs. But then, it does not overweigh the logic of her wife and daughter, who understand that death cannot be stopped always, even for the loved ones. But then again, Singer, a physician author, coincidentally, shares his sentiments when he notes that it becomes very difficulty when that person is your mother (qtd in Preece 2002, p 30). The only difference, however, is that Singer thinks the money used to support a terminally sick person, who will eventually die regardless, could be put into better use helping the poor.

To make a suitable decision, therefore, demands that we examine the condition of the patient and the chances she has of leading a quality life in future. And, in the case of Ramirez, two realities stare at us her sickness is terminal and second, she is at the very last phase of life. We should not depend on her judgment to end her life. However, at the right time, when everything else seems to make no sense, the doctors should switch off the machines and let her rest. It is here that morality fails to shed light on the problems we face, and euthanasia finds its value (Lachs, 1995 p188). Indeed, human wishes and desires notwithstanding, there is a point in life when man should accept his mortal nature.