INTRO:The Webster’s dictionary defines euthanasia as “the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain or suffering” (((((QUOTE)))) many forms of euthanasia are legal in some or all countries. I believe that is was never morally permissible for a society or an individual to perform, or engage in, involuntary euthanasia.
However, due to different ethical beliefs between individuals, it could be seen as ethical based on the utilitarian system. The definition of the utilitarianism system, as provided by the textbook “ethics in law enforcement” written by ______: is as follows; “utilitarian ethics is a normal ethical system that is primarily concerned with the consequences of ethical decisions” ((((quote))). The text goes on to explain that even if someone commits an act that I considered to be “bad” but ends up having “good” consequences then, the originally “bad” act could be perceived as good.
Understanding this concept, we can now analyze the use of eugenics and euthanasia from societal and individual perspective of on of its worst perpetrators, Adolf Hitler.
If we were to ruminate on the ideas and history behind and involving involuntary euthanasia on a societal level, at some point, we would have to touch on the mass killing that took place in Germany under the dictatorship of the Nazi Adolf Hitler. *********** around 1933, Hitler successfully began implementing a program that allowed physicians to determine if a “mercy death” should be enacted on patients that they deemed to be terminally ill. ((((((((USHMM.ORG))))))))) this mercy death removed all choice from the patient, growing involuntary euthanasia that we speak about today. This example of Nazi Germany gives us a glimpse into the full accepted eugenics. The so called “mercy death” that was instated was not a form of euthanasia, but rather a cover up for his plan to decimate the mentally ill and handicapped from his “perfect and unblemished” society. (((((((USHMM.ORG)))))) The Webster dictionary define this as eugenics or “the science of improving a human population by controlled breeching to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics” ((((((DICTIONARY))))))). After achieving his goal of successfully “exterminating” the mentally ill and handicapped, he furthered his vision of eliminating unwanted genes from his society by instilling a “ban of unions between the hereditary healthy” ((((( ))))) and the “genetically unfit” ((((())))))))). Hitler carried out the glorified ideals of eugenics supporters by posing a law of mass sterilization. ((((encyclopedia.ushmm.org)))))
The result of the Nazi regime was so devastating to say the least. Countless hopes and dreams smothered by the view and will power of one man. However, his actions, even though considered abhorrent by the vast majority today, can be justified by the utilitarian system of ethics.
In the case of a newborn/ infant, we would not be referring to involuntary euthanasia, as they have no ability to give their consent. This type of euthanasia is called non-voluntary euthanasia. I do believe that non-voluntary euthanasia can be permissible under the right circumstances. but, according to the ethics of care system, the use of non-voluntary euthanasia on a child simply because it is deformed or mentally disabled is unethical.
The ethics of care system is “primarily concerned with caring for others and had evolved from the need and duty to cure for those who cannot care for themselves.” (open text 2.5).
To take a life after it has been given only because the child is “different” goes against everything the ethics of care system stands for. However, there are times when I believe the choice to abstain from giving life can fit into the ethics of care system. For instance, if a woman is pregnant at a young age and has no means or help to support and nourish the child, she will not be able to accomplish the basics of life by the ethics care system. If she does not have the means to care for herself, how will she provide a child with basic needs? In the minds of many in this situation, they are taking care of both themselves and the child. To snatch the given life away after the discovery of its disability(ies) doesn’t follow the ethics care system.
The fear that societies and individuals often have are fears of passing down inherently genetic diseases through childbirth. These people are often left with the decision of how to go about continuing to grow a family. However, sterilization is not the ethically correct answer. According to the United Nations declaration of human rights article 16, men and women of full age, without any limitations due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to fund a family”((((un.org))))). If we discuss this from a consequentialist point of view, the involuntary sterilization to prevent the inheritance of mental or physical disabilities can be an accepted practice. Referencing the “understanding ethic systems” available to the fm14243 course, the definition of consequentialism is when moral worth only in results. If the result provides more good than evil in the end, then it does not matter if the result was born from vicious motives or evil intentions. The outcome of millions of healthy children and the hope of eradicating harmful inherited genetics might outweigh the millions of people sterilized against their will. However, what if there was another way to prevent these diseases from spreading or growing? In 1981, the AIDs epidemic was discovered. As of today UNAIDS reports that 36.1 million people are currently living with aids and nearly 22 million people have passed since the epidemic began. (((((amfar.org))))))
Although it is still a dangerous disease today, as of 1997 scientists had developed treatments to reduce mother to child transmission as well as partner to partner transmission. As previously stated, i do not believe that involuntary sterilization of any kind is ethical. My stance on the matter also applies for population control purposes. In the year 1980, China's population was 981.2 million. 98 million were around the age of 15024. Thinking logically, in the next five years they would all be in their prime years for starting a family. To put this into perspective, in 1980, the united states, whose size is very similar to China's, population consisted of roughly 230 million people with only 20 million of them falling into the same age category as China. Understanding their situation, China developed the One-Child Act that limited each family to one child. The methods used to enforce the act were, and still are, controversial. For instance, one of the softer methods the government used to support the act was to provide contraceptives. However, another seemingly harmless method was to offer incentives, such as compensation for obeying the act. Due to the government supporting this mandatory law by offering incentives in order to change the composition of their society, the act turned into a form of eugenics (Pyschology today). On top of that, the government forced sterilization’s and abortions aiding in the prevention some 400 million births. As well, because males were desired so that they might carry-on the family name, the sex ratio became grossly skewed. In 2016, their were reported to be 33.59 million more men than women (britannica.com).
According to Aquinas’s view and ethical system of natural law, this method of self preservation is unethical period. In the ethical system of natural law, the first principle is “good is to be done and promoted, and evil is to be avoided”. ((BOOK)). The results of the forced sterilization and preformed eugenics that took place in China up until 2016 should be a warning and a lesson.
Personally, and in the ethical systems discussed and outlined, I do not believe that it is ever morally permissible for a society or an individual to engage in involuntary eugenics or euthanasia.