Death within Morality

Medical professionals are guided by a set of moral/ethical standards, which are centered on the idea of doing no harm. However, the medical world is faced with questions and controversies surrounding the issue of death. Generally, life and death are complex subjects or issues in the field of medical practice. There are controversies of whether keeping someone alive can actually be harmful and whether death can actually be a more ethical choice than life. These debates are fueled by the view that living long, happy lives seem to be the best thing. For medical professionals, determining when to keep someone alive or let them die remains debatable. Medical professionals face this dilemma given that the heart and function of philosophy is to prepare humans to die (Wassmer, p.759). While death is at the center of the human experience, death within morality is an impossibility.

Overview of the Issue

As previously indicated, life and death are two difficult subjects that have attracted the attention of medical professionals as well as philosophers. Life and death decisions are primarily moral issues, which are at the core of ethical theories. According to Wassmer, philosophers have always been interested in public discourse on death, particularly its implications on the deceased and the living (p.759). Philosophers interests in discussions on death are fueled by the idea that the heart and function of this field is to prepare humans for death. When considering death, philosophers try to apply mysticism or magic. From a philosophical perspective, discussions and views of death are primarily contradictory. On one hand, many people attempt to put death out of their daily thoughts or consciousness. On the other hand, some people are constantly preoccupied with death, which is considered a normal human experience. This implies that death is viewed as larger than life, on one hand, and life is viewed as larger than death on another hand.

Philosophical arguments and debates on death are based on the concern of whether death annihilates life altogether or is larger than life (Kokosalakis, p.402). The contradictory views have contributed to the emergence of problematic arguments on the concept of death within an existential or philosophical context. Even though death is deemed an ordinary and inevitable human experience, its occurrence generates questions on what it really means in a human existential context. As a result, there are philosophical debates on how humans should cope with death and whether moral justifications negate the existential experience of death. From a philosophical perspective, the issue of death entails dealing with more than the complex question of biological life. Death goes beyond biological life to include the framework of human consciousness, existence, and transcendence.

From a medical perspective, the reality of death primarily means the cessation of all the functions of bodily organs. Kokosalakis notes that human death basically entails the cessation of an individuals consciousness (p.403). The intersection between medicine and philosophy regarding the concept of death is evident in the idea of human existence and consciousness. Medicine seemingly utilizes philosophical ideas to define the concept of death by looking at it from the lenses of human existence and consciousness. However, medicine includes the idea of biological life as it is the premise for understanding human consciousness and existence. Therefore, medicine considers death in terms of its precedence over the biological perspective of life. Death is not only a threat but also an eliminating force of human life, which is deemed sacred and should be protected.

Medical professionals face dilemmas on the morality of death because of their moral duty to patients including those at the end-of-life stage. The moral duty of medical professionals to patients is centered on the notion of doing no harm. One of the fundamental ethical principles that govern medical practice is the do no harm principle. As a result, when medical professionals face patients who opt for voluntary euthanasia, they face dilemmas regarding the extent to which their actions would violate this ethical principle and whether they are morally justified. This dilemma is exacerbated by the fact that modern medicine considers terminal sicknesses or illnesses as justifications for death since they cannot be cured. Even without voluntary euthanasia, patients with terminal conditions will end up dying. Consequently, the issue of death remains an ethical and controversial problem in the field of medicine that is complicated by the underlying philosophical arguments and moral views.

Arguments in Favor of Death

Eribo & Izibili contend that the concept of death has been the subject of philosophical debates over the years (p.373). The debates surrounding this concept are attributable to the fact that human death has constituted basic mythological problems. Philosophers have found it difficult to navigate through and address these problems in their efforts to clarify questions relating to death. The basic mythological problems that have surrounded philosophical arguments on death have found their way to the field of medicine. As previously noted, medicine and philosophy intersect on the issue of death through the idea of human existence and consciousness. Since the two disciplines incorporate the idea of human existence and consciousness, the debates surrounding the concept of death have become part and parcel of medical practice.

With the advent of medical advances, medical professionals do their best to prolong the life of patients including those with terminal illnesses. However, there are ethical concerns on whether prolonging the lives of patients who are suffering is the right thing to do. This has contributed to debates on the extent to which death within morality can be achieved...

…value of a human being. Human dignity is based simply on the fact that we are human rather than on health or socioeconomic status. The idea of death within morality devalues or undermines the sanctity of life and is inconsistent with the conventional doctrine of the dignity of every human being regardless of his/her condition.

Death within morality is an impossibility because no man has the right f ownership to his/her life. Even though man has a right to his/her own life, that right is only within the boundaries of legitimate stewardship or use. No human being has the right of ownership to his/her life. Therefore, giving man the liberty to choose when and how to die implies giving him/her the right to ownership of life, which he/she does not have. The right of ownership to life belongs to the creator of life. Moreover, human life is exclusively a divine right. Consequently, there are limitations to the legitimate use of ones body. This implies that allowing medical professionals the freedom to administer euthanasia is tantamount to giving them the right to ownership of life. This in itself creates ethical concerns and moral problems since no human being has the right to ownership of his/her own life as well as the life of others.

Proponents of death within morality on grounds of suffering and pain seemingly argue that it is a means of respect for patient autonomy, free will, or self-determination. However, this view is based on a simplistic understanding of what constitutes these rights. Medical professionals not only need to protect patients rights and interests during care delivery but also have the right to refuse medical treatment. By refusing medical treatment, medical professionals exercise their rights in a manner that does not violate patients rights. This means that death within morality cannot be supported on grounds of respect for patients autonomy, free will, or self-determination since these rights should be considered within values and opportunities of human choice. Humans have the right to make decisions but it is not an absolute right to make free decisions, but responsible decisions (Fisher par, 30). Therefore, human rights are not absolute rights and should be exercised within the context of responsible decisions.

In conclusion, life and death decisions have been at the center of philosophical debates and controversies in the medical profession. The long-standing philosophical debate on the concept of death has found its way into the medical profession. Current philosophical and medical debates or controversies on the concept of death are based on whether it is morally justifiable. On one hand, some have argued that death within morality is justifiable on grounds of an individuals suffering or pain. On the other hand, some argue that death is not morally justifiable as it infringes on an individuals…