Euthanasia

Kweon and Kweon examine the ethics behind euthanasia from a Buddhist and Christian perspective, and come to the conclusion that the diverse religions may actually be more similar than they appear, because both forbid the use of euthanasia in any circumstance. They see euthanasia as an argument from consequentialism, namely because in many cases where it is argued terminating life would be preferable to a period of intense suffering. Buddhist and Christian beliefs however take a deontological approach, and refuse to allow euthanasia as it is a violation of life. This is so even at the request of the sufferer, because they should respect that which is good (their own life).

Euthanasia does not always need be looked at from a consequentialist viewpoint, however. One aspect of deontology that the religious views minimize is the importance of rights and autonomy. Under the religious view, we are forbidden to kill another, even with their permission namely because the value of life itself is seen to be much greater than our personal whims. However, is all life equal? A religious person may think so, because it all originally came from some sort of supernatural entity. However, it is difficult to imagine that the life of a typical middle class American is equal in value to the life of a child soldier in Darfur. That is not to say that one life is more important than another, but that one life is filled with more "goodness" than the other. This can take the form of material goods such as a nice home and clothing or psychological goods such as love. Either way, it is hard to say that both lives.

The religious person may come back and argue that the lives are equal, if only because they each exist. However if this were true, then whatever happens in each life would not matter and the only thing that would matter in life is the preservation of it. It seems strange to think this way, because it seems to suggest that we must attempt to preserve our lives no matter what, even at the cost of all those things that make life meaningful. Without the goods that make a life meaningful, such as healthy relationships, material goods, knowledge, success, personal well-being, etc then why live at all? The entirety of our time here would only be filled with pain and suffering, we would have lived a life that was not worth living.

The same can be said of the terminally ill patient who in his last moments of coherence asks to be killed because there is no hope, only pain and suffering wait in his last few days. We should not just disregard their wish because they seem to be disrespecting their own existence. Instead we should ask why they may feel this way, and whether they are really disrespecting their own life. In the case of the terminally ill patient, there is nothing left for him. Therefore, his life is no longer meaningful, and the value of the life we are disrespecting is very minimal.  On the other hand, by not heeding his thought out personal wish, we are impeding on his own autonomy. The fact that his life no longer has value and he has personally waived his right not to be killed should make it okay for a case of voluntary suicide.