Euthanasia-Critical Analysis

ETHR1033: Applied Ethics.
Spring 2023
Name- Tazneen Hossain Tani
ID-221001
A Critical Analysis of ‘Euthanasia’
The field of applied ethics includes a number of controversial topics that are discussed by
philosophers in different ways. Euthanasia is a crucial topic of applied ethics that has been a
subject of interest to many writers. Michael Tooley and Daniel Callahan are two such writers
who have shared their views on euthanasia. Michael Tooley in his article "In Defense of
Voluntary Active Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide" argues in favor of euthanasia. On the other
hand, in “A Case Against Euthanasia” Daniel Callahan takes a stand against euthanasia and
discusses why euthanasia should not be considered a moral act. The arguments of the authors in
both articles are very strong. However, a few contradictions can be identified in their discussion
too. In this paper, I will critically evaluate the two papers by these authors and share my thoughts
about euthanasia.
Michael Tooley’s article is based on logical inferences which prove the moral
permissibility of euthanasia. His two main claims in the article are- euthanasia is not morally
wrong and there should be no laws against euthanasia (Tooley 2005, 161). The author begins the
article with clear definitions of different forms of euthanasia. He distinguishes between
voluntary, involuntary, active and passive euthanasia. He also addresses the definition of
euthanasia given by other writers like Daniel Callahan as problematic and incomplete (Tooley
2005, 162). The author’s primary focus in the article is voluntary active euthanasia (VAE),
which the author defined as the killing of a terminally ill patient with his own consent through
performing a direct action by the physician. Tooley (2005) says that this form of euthanasia has
special moral status different from non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. The important point
of his argument is the right of humans on their own life. The author implies that human beings
have full autonomy over their own lives. The choice of life or death is in their own interests. So
it is not morally wrong for a person to end his own life. Therefore, it must not be wrong for a
physician to assist a patient with it. This was a very strong point in favor of Tooley’s claim.
However, I think this point was not flawless because he did not give equal importance to duty as
much as he gave to rights. While the author is correct that we have rights over our own lives, his
approach of considering our pleasure and suffering more important than our obligations to others
is not right. I believe we cannot enjoy rights without fulfilling duties at the same time. Since we
are all part of families and social communities, we have duties toward them too. Our choice of
euthanasia may not be expected and accepted by our close ones. We have a duty to understand
their expectations and desires. The author was wrong in claiming that euthanasia ends the
suffering of people close to the patient. Instead, a sooner death can increase their emotional
suffering. The article lacked a credential for not taking duties and emotional aspects of life
seriously. It raises the question of whether any act becomes morally right just because it reduces
our suffering, even if it increases the sorrows of others. We should not consider ending human
life just because it reduces our own suffering. It becomes contradictory to the principle of life.
Human life should not be considered as a means of acquiring anything, rather it should be
considered as an end itself (Kant 1785, 4:429). I agree with Kant’s principle which implies that
both pain and joy of life should be embraced. According to this principle, suicide cannot be right
which Tooley claims. So the claim that euthanasia is right also becomes questionable since
euthanasia and suicide are similar in the context of ending life for similar reasons, that is, to
reduce sorrow and pain.
The article by Daniel Callahan is based on empirical research. He condemns euthanasia

in his article through a number of viewpoints derived from practical life. He highlights in his
article how suicide and euthanasia are rarely chosen by people despite the severe suffering of
life. He tries to imply that there are rational and moral reasons behind the less frequent
occurrence of these actions. One key point of Callahan's (2005) research is that euthanasia is a
social act. He makes this inference because the direct involvement of physicians is involved in
euthanasia. So it is not entirely a matter of a patient only. He shares the concern about the
possibility of physicians manipulating the act of euthanasia which will make the act completely
immoral. I completely agree with this point. To maintain the transparency of performing
euthanasia is very crucial to consider it morally and legally right. But it is difficult to ensure that
since there is always confidentiality between doctors and patients. I also think euthanasia is
harmful for society because it might demotivate doctors, researchers and caregivers away from
their duties. Many scientists, researchers and doctors are working on finding the cure for many
diseases that cause tremendous suffering to the patient. Caregivers work for finding out the best
suitable care for each type of patient. If euthanasia becomes a widely accepted task, people will
choose to die at an early stage of suffering and the motivation to find a cure for them will be lost.
Lastly, Callahan has talked about the dignity of death in the article which is very significant in
considering euthanasia. He opposes the view that dying after suffering a lot causes a person to
lose dignity. According to Callahan, death is as normal as any other biological process and
euthanasia cannot add any extra dignity to it (Callahan 2005, 189). My viewpoint on the dignity
of death is that it is a universal thing and every species has to pass this stage. So, we should
embrace death in a natural way.
Our life is a combination of various incidents and experiences altogether. Joys and
sorrows comprise our life. Duties, obligations, faith, emotions, and death are all equally part of
our lives and everything has a natural way of taking its place in our lives. Euthanasia is not
nature’s way of ending a life. It cannot be a moral or legal task since will create many more
problems in society. The act of euthanasia can be resisted by looking at life from a different
viewpoint. So we should not consider euthanasia as a solution for life’s suffering.
References:
Daniel Callahan. "A Case Against Euthanasia". In Cohen, Andrew and Christopher Heath
Wellman (ed.). 2005. Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics. Blackwell Publishing
Ltd.
Immanuel Kant. In Gregor, Mary (ed.). 1998. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
Cambridge University Press.
Michael Tooley. "In Defense of Voluntary Active Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide". In
Cohen, Andrew and Christopher Heath Wellman (ed.). 2005. Contemporary Debates in
Applied Ethics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Euthanasia-Critical Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Euthanasia-Critical Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Euthanasia-Critical Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ETHR1033: Applied Ethics.

A Critical Analysis of ‘Euthanasia’

The article by Daniel Callahan is based on empirical research. He condemns euthanasia

You might also like