By Gati Kochar
Euthanasia, also known as ‘mercy killing’ or ‘good death’ is an act of ending one’s life owing to unbearable, chronic suffering, often due to medical reasons, which has no scope for further improvement. Some people voluntarily choose to die with Euthanasia as they are unable to bear with the malady. However, in other cases, the next of kin members take a call for the deceased. A heated matter of debate is that when a person performs the act of euthanasia for someone else, they believe that the latter shall be better off dead, as being alive doesn’t make any difference for them.
The idea behind euthanasia gives rise to certain moral, ethical and legal concerns. Here is a brief classification of euthanasia:
VOLUNTARY – performed with the informed consent of the individual
INVOLUNTARY – performed without the consent of the individual. Usually, the decision is taken by close family members.
EUTHANASIA AND THE SANCTITY OF LIFE
The sanctity of human life, often tied to religion, holds that all human lives are inherently valuable and must be preserved. According to the critiques of euthanasia, the process violates the basic sacredness and paramountcy of the life of mankind. It is believed that this ‘mercy killing’ undervalues some lives as compared to others. Any patient is ultimately a human being and the worthiness of their life is equivalent to a normal, healthy person. Therefore, a basic respect towards human life should always be maintained.
An underlying fear is that this ‘right to die’ might become a ‘duty to die’ on some occasions when the patient feels pressurized to request euthanasia, not because they are unable to bear the pain anymore or their willingness to live has ceased, but for the reason that they might become a financial and emotional burden on their kin.
On the other hand, the proponents of euthanasia imply that ending the suffering of someone who is terminally ill respects the sanctity of life. For them, death with dignity and peace is far more humane than living a life of suffering. Their case is that the quality of life outweighs its sanctity and therefore mercy killing is justified.
NOZICKIAN LIBERTARIANISM – INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND AUTONOMY
According to Robert Nozick, we are unique, separate, and possess distinct identities and reasons. Only humans can imagine, innovate, and choose what is best for themselves. Therefore, he places individual rights at a premium level above everything else. People own themselves and their labour and thus can exercise their rights freely, as long as their actions do not infringe the rights of others.
‘SIDE CONSTRAINT’
Human beings should never be treated as a means to attain a desired objective. Rather, they should be appreciated as ends in themselves. Nobody acts or is supposed to act as a resource for anyone else. Side constraints are inviolable boundaries that no external body is allowed to cross for the sake of achieving a greater common good. It accentuates the importance of minimizing coercion and respecting individual autonomy. While utilitarianism prioritizes the maximization of collective happiness and pleasure regardless of individual rights, Nozick argues that the utilitarian approach sacrifices human free will. The only condition that could allow for the violations of such side constraints would be if this were the only way to “avoid catastrophic moral horror.”
‘MINIMAL STATE’
Individuals need appropriate space to make their lives meaningful. Therefore, Nozick advocates a state or government which has a very limited role to play in the lives of the citizens. The state shall function to provide apt conditions in which the citizens can lead a fruitful life for themselves. Nozick’s emphasis on ‘the watchman state’ suggests that there is nothing particularly interesting about having a state except for the fact that it ensures the security of the citizens from violence and other crimes. Nozick was particularly against something called ‘legislation of morality’.
According to this idea, Nozick would oppose the interference by the government and the courts in matters related to Euthanasia. The interference of the family members shall be criticized by him.
The Nozickian ideas can be better explained by way of two distinct cases:
Case 1 – Voluntary Euthanasia
Zoraya Ter Beek, a 28-year-old woman decided to end her life by requesting euthanasia. After struggling with serious mental health issues of depression, borderline personality disorder and autism, when doctors’ efforts also reached a dead end, she saw no point in living her life in despair any further. Therefore, she started taking medications two days after which she passed away, leaving behind her boyfriend and a dog.
This case might seem very similar to suicide, however there is a thin line of difference. Zoraya makes an informed decision to end her life after undergoing a long period of treatment and with due consultation from the medical expert. Also, the cases of voluntary euthanasia, in most cases, arise due to unbearable suffering from a medical condition.
Case 2 – Involuntary Euthanasia
In the prominent Aruna Shaunbag case, Shaunbag, a 25-year-old nurse was raped by a janitor in a hospital. As a result, she incurred a cervical cord injury, cortical blindness and brain stem contusion. Aruna was left in a vegetative state for the next 42 years that followed. However, responding to the plea by her lawyer, the Bombay High Court granted the permission to withdraw life support, thereby allowing passive or assisted euthanasia – wherein we let the patient intentionally die by removing artificial support like medications and ventilators.
If we try to view the two cases above through the lens of Nozick and correlate his theories, it is evident that he would not oppose the request for euthanasia.
He very clearly is convinced with the idea of Voluntary Euthanasia, where the subject, willingly terminates their life. His philosophy advocates autonomy and self-ownership. An individual must possess complete control over themselves, and thus also have a right to make personal choices even if it is about taking their own life. However, the decision must be free from any external coercion or influence.
As opposed to voluntary euthanasia, Nozick would condemn the idea of Involuntary euthanasia as according to him, this is a direct violation of the basic human right to exist! Although Nozick does not explicitly elaborate on the essence of the sanctity of life, his emphasis on individual rights indicates some inherent value in life. Since in the case of involuntary euthanasia, the consent of the patient is not taken into consideration, Nozick might treat the act as equivalent to murder.
The legality of euthanasia differs globally. While active euthanasia is legal in countries like the Netherlands, it is completely banned in India. Nozick stands against the extensive role that the states play in the lives of the citizens. He favours a state which limits its responsibility to the protection of citizens from crime and ensuring safety. So, if the judiciary interferes in matters concerning euthanasia, and its decision is binding on the individuals, then Nozick is likely to critique this aspect.
CAN WE SETTLE THIS DEBATE?
Euthanasia essentially challenges the sanctity of life. Every life is sacred and therefore must be preserved irrespective of what the quality of life is. The idea of Euthanasia violates this fundamental principle.
There are arguments from the proponents of euthanasia that to relieve a terminally ill person from pain, ending their lives is justified. This allows the patient to have a dignified death. However, this argument leads to a “slippery slope” where the quality of life is valued more than its sanctity. Similarly, legalizing euthanasia can devalue the worth of the lives of individuals who are sick, handicapped or vulnerable.
If we go by religious beliefs, they oppose euthanasia as it opposes the will of God and the natural process of birth and death. This ‘mercy death’ interferes with this process by shortening the life.
CONCLUSION
Having looked at euthanasia from the Nozickian lens of libertarianism and the concept of the sanctity of life, it is evident that every life is important. There are huge dilemmas when it comes to euthanasia, about whether the sanctity of life surpasses the importance of its quality or vice-versa. There are questions about the involvement of the state in such matters and to what extent is individual liberty justified. In some cases, it can be said that euthanasia supports relieving the person from extreme pain. However, the decision of whether the other person should live or not, cannot be left to any external entity. Therefore, to some extent, the role of the state becomes important in regulating the exercise of euthanasia and preventing its misuse.
About the Author
Gati Kochar is a final-year Master's in Public Policy student at Jindal School of Government and Public Policy. With a strong foundation in philosophy, analytical thinking and normative reasoning, she is passionate about Urban Planning, Transport and Mobility, and Housing
Comments