In order to discuss the morality of euthanasia, we must first clearly define what euthanasia is. Euthanasia is the process where a patient ends their life in order to relieve themselves of the pain and suffering from a life-threatening disease. While, the legality of euthanasia discusses whether or not the patient has the right to even make this decision in the first place. On the other hand, the morality of euthanasia discusses whether or not it is morally correct to grant someone a decision as to whether or not they should relieve themselves of their pain and suffering. In order to support the claim that voluntary euthanasia, as defined, is morally right, we must discuss the SOR cycle/Free-Will relationship, outline the meaning of consent, explain consent in the process of euthanasia, and discuss how the problems of consent are tackled in euthanasia.
The signal-organism-response process begins with stimulus coming in as a signal, to be received by the organism, and then the organism decides how to respond. Free will is the ability for individuals to make their own decisions. Now when the signal-organism-response cycle combines with free will; we notice that there is not a perfect balance but rather an exchange of information. When a signal is present, the organism cannot control the signal’s existence because of the exterior force (man, nature, technology, etc.) that created it, therefore, the signal is predetermined. The organism then processes the predetermined signal and is able to convert it into a response to a situation, allowing the organism to exercise their free will. This information is prerequisite to understanding the theory of consent and in outlining the differences between consent and authority.
Consent is the mutual agreement between two or more parties of individuals, groups, cultures, etc. The impact of consent itself can be divided into primary and secondary parties (for now in order to centralize the focus); where the primary party is the individual, group, culture directly affected by the situation and the secondary party that is affected by the situation because of the impact that it will have on the primary party. Influencers on the other hand, fall in between the primary and secondary parties. Influencers shape the opinions of the particular parties, reinforcing what the primary party believes to be morally sound. These influencers can vary from person to person because influencers are individuals, groups, and cultures that can have a role on what the individual believes without receiving any of the impact. The problems that arise in regards to consent includes the inability to provide consent all of the time, the consenting parties could be developing persons or they could be reduced persons which we will discuss in detail later, and the information can be asymmetrical.
Now that we have elaborated on the SOR process’ relationship to free will and the meaning of consent, we will now be able to discuss consent and euthanasia. The difference between voluntary and involuntary is that while voluntary euthanasia has the patients consent, involuntary euthanasia does not have the patient’s consent. In all cases of euthanasia, the primary party would be the patient considering the process of getting euthanized because they are the ones that will be affected the most by this decision. The secondary party includes anyone that has developed a close connection to the primary party (the patient) such as but not limited too; present family members, friends, coworkers, doctors, etc. that will be indirectly affected by this decision. Influencers of this decision can include any other individuals, groups, or cultures that would be able to shape the opinions of the patient without being affected by the decision. In order to start the process of euthanization, the patient needs to be informed on the current status of their life-threatening disease and figure out if the patient has considered the process of euthanasia. If the patient has considered this process, the nurses/doctors would have to provide general information about passive and active euthanization and outline the differences between the two. For example, the patient would need to know that passive euthanasia is when they remove medical treatments from the patient while active euthanasia is when the patient receives a lethal injection. The secondary party members and influencers only have the power to convince patient to make a particular decision. To elaborate even further, we can state that the present family members, friends, and other influencers can try to convince the patient to either go through/or not to go through with the procedure, however, it would be up to the patient to decide whether or not they would go through with the procedure. The patient then decides whether or not they want to be euthanized and the method in which they prefer to be euthanized, if they agree to being euthanized in the first question. This ability for the patient to exercise their respective free will and make their own decision is what allows the process of voluntary euthanasia to be morally sound. From this point, the doctor has to decide whether or not he will allow the patient to be euthanized under his watch. The doctor will run through a list of options that would satisfy the patient’s goal in being euthanized and work within the parameters of the doctor’s comfort. Once an agreement has been made between the doctor and the patient, the doctor is able to screen the patient’s medical history, in order to see if the patient is able to consent to the process. In other words, people with suicidal tendencies, depression, etc. would not be able to be euthanized because it would allow the patient a chance to commit suicide. Since a patient with mental illness does not have a clear mindset on what decisions they should make in regards to their own life, they would be unable to make that decision in the first place. On the day that the procedure is about to occur, the patient has to sign a form stating that they were informed about their life-threatening illness, the processes of euthanasia, and were mentally stable enough to make this decision.
The problems that arise with consent and euthanasia occurs when consent cannot be given, when consenting parties are potential/reduced, and when there has been an asymmetrical amount of information that has been given to the patient. Cases where consent cannot be given includes unconscious, sleeping, and comatose patients that are unable to make a first-hand decision as to whether or not they should go through with euthanization. You may be wondering, what happens if they have a will or something like that stating that they want to go through with the process? To that question I would say even under a legally binding document, the patient has not provided consent because consent can vary unpredictably. Meaning that just because someone says, “No” now doesn't mean that they won’t say “Yes” in the future, or just because they say, “Yes” now doesn't mean that they won’t say, “No” in the future. Another issue is that consenting parties that are potential/reduced persons do not have the ability to consent therefore, their consent cannot be asked for in the first place. Potential persons such as; fetuses, babies, or small children are unable to consent to euthanasia because they cannot communicate their reasons to making a decision, none of the less, be able to make a decision. Reduced persons such as; the mentally disabled, overdosed, and drunk are unable to consent to euthanasia because they are unable to exercise their free will to make the decision that they want to make. The final problem is that an asymmetrical amount of information could be presented between the patient and the doctor. Very commonly, the doctor is more likely to have more knowledge about the process of euthanasia than the patients themselves; therefore, there is an asymmetrical amount of information present between the doctor and the patient. The patient however, doesn’t need to know everything that the doctor knows, but the patient would need to know the general information about euthanasia. The patient would be unable to properly consent to euthanasia because the patient was not properly informed about all of the information required to make the decision.
After reviewing the SOR cycle/Free-Will relationship, the meaning of consent, explain consent in the process of euthanasia and discuss how the problems of consent are tackled in euthanasia. We can conclude that voluntary euthanasia is a morally sound process because it allows the patient the ability to exercise their free will and make a decision that directly involves them. The process of euthanasia is when a patient consents to ending their own life in order to relieve them of the pain and suffering from a life-threatening disease.