J. Gay Williams: A Defense of Humanity

Gay-Williams defines euthanasia as “intentionally taking the life of a presumably hopeless person;” hopeless meaning the suffering individual has very little chance of recovery and intentionally meaning the intention has to explicitly to be to kill the individual (Munson, 704). Hence, the term ‘passive euthanasia’ cannot exist, because the sufferer is “not killed…nor is the death of the person intended by the withholding of additional treatment” (704). However, here Williams assumes that the doctor’s intention when ending a treatment is never to kill the patient but always something else. After clarifying the term euthanasia, Williams presents his argument from nature that it is inherently wrong. At the scientific, biological level, it is natural for the body to work towards survival. Hence, survival is a ‘natural goal’. Euthanasia is “literally acting against nature because all of the processes of nature are bent towards the end of bodily survival” (705). By ending life, which is an end of nature itself, euthanasia is obviously unnatural (705). Williams does not stop there but further argues that euthanasia is immoral. He presents it more implicitly, stating that he “shall not employ this line of argument,” but he does still state it (705). He argues that since the body is an individual’s trust from God, by taking his own life, is acting against God. Hence, euthanasia is immoral as well. The crux of Williams’ argument relating to nature is in his discussion of reason (705). He argues that what separates us from “animals” is our ability to reason, and it is this reasoning which becomes the vehicle of human morality and behavior. It is not very hard to see why euthanasia, as something that goes against this reasoning, this natural reasoning, should be something that must be carefully approached, if not outright rejected. As Williams states, “Euthanasia involves acting as if this….inclination towards survival and awareness…did not exist”. Euthanasia, as it relates to nature, sparks an argument of reason; or the lack thereof. Is it even reasonable to consider such a procedure as it goes against basic human rights, character, and conscious reason? Williams follows with his second argument, that euthanasia is wrong because by practicing it “we will work against our own interest if we practice it or allow it to be practiced on us” (705). That is assuming that working against one’s own self-interest is wrong, which Williams assumes. First, he argues, though modern medicine has a notable track record, it still may make a mistake in the form of a wrong diagnosis or such. So maybe the patient may be misdiagnosed with a fatal disease when he or she actually does not have it. Secondly, there is always a chance, however little, that some new technique or treatment may save the patient. Even more, it is possible the patient may recover without any treatment at all. Euthanasia does not allow the patient to ever recover in the future by some new technique or none at all. Lastly, the patient is usually suffering a very painful disease that may also leave him depressed, which may cause him to wish, in his moment of weakness, to die. He may also wish to save his guardians any suffering, financial or otherwise, and feel he does so by killing himself. However, if he was in a normal, stronger state of mind he would not think in such a way. Euthanasia takes advantage of the patient’s weak state and forces him to act against his self-interest. Now, there is a practical side to this euthanasia debate. If euthanasia is implemented as a medical practice there are several factors to consider. As Williams himself emphatically states, “a life lost is, for them (doctors and nurses), almost a personal failure” (705). While this may be considered as a matter of personal opinion, it is not very hard to recognize the very real challenges faced by the people in the medical profession. There is tremendous pressure to achieve high success rates, when it comes to patient cases, and be efficient at the same time. If euthanasia is implemented as a process, then this structure would have to be altered, and many adverse effects could occur, with a “decline in the quality of medical care” being the greatest effect. The constant dynamic of efficient multitasking would leave matters of euthanasia as less priority, as Williams implies, just so medical professionals can focus on the other tasks at hand. By doing so, euthanasia itself can become an overused, yet not very thought out procedure, benefiting no one in the end. Finally, there is the issue of euthanasia as a policy. Williams argues that it is a “slippery slope”, but it a far grayer area then it seems. Policy becomes about more than just the individual undergoing the procedure- there is also the matter of the patient being able to “deputize others to do it” (705). If such people can authorize such actions, then there is the matter of their states of mind, weighing their judgments in other cases, and whether such people are fit to make such decisions in the first place. This would be a hassle for policy-makers, and in a broader scale, could even turn into a more mind-numbing issue. If policy-makers themselves, such as people in the leadership, are allowed to set quotas and categorize constituents, then there can be serious repercussions. Elimination of “those who might be considered too ‘ill’ to function” may cause social outrage and create an even grayer area in policy making and political discourse.