One of the principal questions in contemporary medical ethics that bleeds into societal morality is the question of euthanasia. Should modern medicine do all it can to save a patient, or should quality of life issues enter into the question? What is the moral balance between preserving life and preventing a once vital human from remaining comatose, sometimes for years? Should religious beliefs prevent medical professionals from helping to ease the pain and suffering of prolonged treatment in a terminally ill patient? These are but some of the difficult questions surrounding the debate on the subject of euthanasia. This paper will present an historical overview of some of the major issues on the subject, give both the pro and con sides of the argument, look at the issues of morality and justice as related to euthanasia using the writings of Piaget, Kohlberg, and Lyons and Gilligan, carry that discussion further with additional ethical issues, and conclude with a synthesis of the dilemmas faced by both health professionals and society at large.
For instance, the case of Nancy Cruzan who was once an active and energetic young woman and who now has been "condemned to 'live' in a permanent vegetative state by a tragic accident and by a 4 t0 3 vote of the state's [Missouri] highest court" (New York Times, 12/3/89). The court ruled that the state had the right to insure and promote life. That right to life, regardless of the quality, was absolute and protected by both moral and legal aspects of modern society.
The Cruzan case brings several problems into focus on the subject of euthanasia. First, what moral decisions must be made regarding quality of life and the issue of what makes life worth living? Is it more ethical to prolong suffering in terminally ill or vegetative patients, or allow them to die with dignity and under the supervision of medical professionals. Second, and specifically mentioned in the Cruzan case, what...