The Moral Dilemma – Euthanasia

I have chosen to evaluate the Terri Schiavo ‘right to die’ case. This case dealt with the decision whether or not to remove her life support (feeding tube). In Terri’s situation she was in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Therefore, Terri could not make the decision to remove her feeding tube for herself. The decision, therefore, was left to her husband who decided it would be best to remove her life support (feeding tube) which was opposed by her parents. Thus, the moral dilemma to evaluate, should human beings have the choice to die (right to die)? Moreover, should others have the right to make the decision for you?

In this case, the type of euthanasia in practice is non-voluntary. Her particular case involved a combination of euthanasia types, meaning, nonvoluntary and passive with no extraordinary measures. Nonvoluntary because Terri could not make the decision for herself and passive because the removal of her feeding tube would eventually allow her to die. Lastly, with no extraordinary means, meaning, no additional measures or treatments applied to her condition that has no way of helping her state. Therefore, the burden of her situation outweighs any benefit (Mackinnon & Fiala, 2015).

To evaluate this ‘right to die’ issue, we must consider the consequentialist and nonconsequentialist considerations. ‘Rule utilitarianism (RU) is the primary factor since ‘act’ utilitarianism (AU) would not work as a consideration in this case. Given that Terri’s parents were against the removal of the feeding tube due to religious beliefs; which they felt Terri shared. Were in contrast to Terri’s husband decision to remove the feeding tube not only because his wife was in a persistent vegetative state (PVS); but that she did not want to be kept alive artificially with no chance of recovery prior to her cardiac arrest (Mackinnon & Fiala, 2015).

For Terri’s parents, it’s not about respecting Terri’s wish it is about their religious faith. While on the other side of this matter, the husband wants to respect his wife’s wish. There is no principle of utility that is applicable in this case because of the two opposing perspectives. RU consideration, in this instance, is concerned with the practice or universal law application on euthanasia. We should consider the involvement of the Florida legislature and courts which allowed for legal intervention in this case which benefited both the parents and eventually the husband (with the case going all the way up to the Supreme Court). Because of the US Supreme Court’s decision not intervene it allowed for the husband’s decision.

In contrast, to consequentialist consideration, there is the nonconsequential consideration. Kant’s deontological position of autonomy, states that persons are unique in being able to choose freely, and this capacity for choice ought to be respected (Mackinnon & Fiala, 2015). As human beings, we have a natural right ‘free will’ the ability to choose what we believe is good or bad, right or wrong, for ourselves. Unfortunately, Terri was not able to make this decision given her condition.

Kantian theory, which opposes suicide and euthanasia, suggests that because Terri was unable to make a decision because of her PVS condition which permanently erased her ability for ‘free will’ and to reason, the choice of euthanasia, in this case, would then be acceptable. It would allow her to die a dignified death, Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, Natural Rights Theories, and Religious Ethics, (n.d.).
In my opinion, the ‘right to die’ issue is a very complicated moral dilemma. It is extremely tough to make such decisions for someone who cannot speak for themselves. Never mind respecting the decision of someone who chooses to die, i.e. a family member. However, in consideration of the Terri Schiavo case, I believe it would have been better to remove her life support based on her PVS condition because she would never recover from this state and in my opinion no longer had any ‘quality of life’.

Allowing her to continue to live in this manner did more harm than good for her entire family. Meaning, the continued sadness they suffered because of her state of being, the ramifications of the Courts intervention taking its toll; which eventually allowed for her death 15 years later, and the inevitable delay in the grievance process took an unnecessary moral toll. Again, the ‘right to die’ issue is a complicated moral dilemma.

References

MacKinnon, B., & Fiala, A. (2015). Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues (Concise, eighth ed.). Cengage Learning.

Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, Natural Rights Theories, and Religious Ethics, Unknown, (n.d.),
New Mexico State University, Retrieved from: http://web.nmsu.edu/~dscoccia/321web/
321ethicstheory.pdf