Today, Suze asks:
Is euthanasia an immoral way to end a life? Please explain your response yea or nay
I’m not going to get into the question itself. People will have a view either way and I’m sure nothing I write will change that. The arguments for and against are well-known. You jump one way or the other.
But for me, this raises a fundamental question:
Who owns our body?
Is it is our own? In which case, surely we have the right to do whatever we want with it? Including extinguishing life from it, if we wish.
Or, does the state own our body? Does that sound sinister to anyone else?
But certainly if you think about conscription, say, the state feels it has the right to send people to their deaths. And people willingly go. Used to, anyhow. So there are precedents where the state feels that it is in control.
Okay, it’s very weird to think of our bodies as we might any old commodity, but framing it this way makes the issue clear. It’s about autonomy. Who should take priority, the individual or the state?
And if you say, sometimes one, sometimes the other, who decides?
Surely they’re the ones who are in real control?
Mister Bump 
Having been a cultural anthropologist I’ve read about, and heard about lots of practices that someone, somewhere is bound to find repulsive, immoral or disgusting. for the most part I tend to avoid getting into the fight because I’ll wind up metioning something that some group does that will really disgust everyone in the room…I’m never at a loss for good cocktail party items.
My personal opinion is that many who oppose it on “moral” grounds might see things differently if they needed compassionate release badly enough.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I suspect you’re right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The state doesn’t own our bodies. Individuals do it. Conscription is a very different thing when the state needs to protect the interest of the state and they need the people of the state to do it. Because if the state thought they own our bodies, they would certainly try to control it more in other ways. Blood and organ donation as such. Or maybe they in their minds, protection of the state is of paramount importance and willingly sending people to their deaths is a valid response in that situation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
who decides the interests of the state?
LikeLiked by 1 person
the state itself. so at a given moment of time, the parliament and the people are the ones in charge of it. that’s why there is no hard and fast rule for euthanasia. people come and go from the state and likewise their opinions on such issues.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ATTN: Sanjeet Patel
“Because if the state thought they own our bodies, they would certainly try to control it more in other ways.”
Might it be possible for the state to control us without having to own our bodies per se? For instance, if you were the Commanding Officer of a highly secret underground base, wouldn’t you prefer to have your soldiers & staff vaccinated with molecular nanotechnology; so in the event that there is a mutiny due to a virus, you could simply render them futile.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, right. I would want to have some sort of protection from that kind of event but if I invest in such a project, it would be in my best interest to protect everyone else who comes in with me, Ultimately the state has to determine what’s the best case scenario for their operation. I do not want my men to be rendered futile in case of an emergency because these are already the some of the best people I have gathered to get the job done.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, you’re correct about divided opinion. Yours is certainly unique. I cannot grant by any stretch of imagination state ownership of an individual. The “state” is a contrivance with only stolen authority, some by willing concession, certainly, but not in any matter the ultimate authority.
LikeLike
I can quite happily hark back to some group of people who banded togather out of common values or for security, say. But that seems some way distant from what we have today.
LikeLike
I was hoping someone would get to the crux of the matter and was so glad you did so.
LikeLike
It’s an interesting argument. We tend not to think about ownership of something like a body but it’s going to get bigger and bigger. Is it right that somebody can sell body parts? Ore, if you use AI to clone a voice, say, who owns it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I vacillate on this one. I agree with both arguments. On the one hand, I think if someone is terminally ill, with no other options, and wants to end a life of pain and misery, they should be allowed to do so. I believe it is the most humane option that minimizes suffering. On the other hand, it can easily be abused and can be construed as both murder and people playing God. In that case, who gets to decide who lives and who dies? If it is to be considered at all, there HAS TO BE very strict guidelines and checks and balances, involving many doctors and evaluations by both the doctors and the recipients. It’s a confusing and convoluted issue. There is NO easy solution.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes, the arguments are well-known. It purely depends which way you want to jump. Note that when you say things like “dooctors’ approval”, you’re still abdicating to someone else. If you truly have ownership of your own body, the only metric is “desire”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with most of you are saying, however, I do think someone needs to be medically evaluated, numerous times by different doctors to determine if it is the right choice. Otherwise I think it would be too easy for doctors and patients alike to use it as a form of “escape” and is ripe for abuse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s saying “You may end your life. so long as somebody else approves of your circumstances”. That doesn’t work for me. I don’t see the circumstances as being anyone else’s business.
It goes to whether you have a society which says “people are free to make their own decisions” or one which is paternalistic. You have your freedom up until the state says you don’t.
LikeLike
That is the difference between suicide, where it is your choice and your choice alone and euthanasia when it is doctor assisted. If someone is helping you, in many places, that is considering murder, no matter how altruistic we think it may be.
LikeLike
An interesting post. Thank you for sharing. Allow me to briefly address your primary question:
Euthanasia can be immoral, especially if it is done for the wrong reasons. It may also be ethically sound, depending on the condition of the patient. Some believe it has nothing to do with morality at all. Here’s a joke to help put things into perspective:
A man is running away from a grizzly bear that happens to be chasing him in the forest. The man realizes that he’s about to get caught, so he kneels down and asks Jesus to turn the creature into a Christian. Moments later, just as the bear catches up with the man, he also falls to his knees and puts its paws together saying ‘thank you, Lord, for the bounty that I am about to receive.’
We are socially conditioned to be moral, which helps to ground ourselves in society and deal with others. At the same time, there are men who are more dangerous than wild animals and are not open to reason whatsoever. Moreover, fortune can uproot anyone, at any time, any place or position. No one knows for sure whether they will live out this day, not to mention reach old age. So is it within our power to live each day as though it may be our last?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I must admit I place very little weight on morals. Yours will be different to mine will be different to the next person’s. It’s shifting sands.
LikeLiked by 1 person