Dax Cowart Paper

"The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another-mercy killing-is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands and is contrary to the policy of the AMA (Rachels.)"

While Dax Cowart had unbearable pain and wished to die, the correct decision was made by the physicians, lawyer, and family that treated Mr. Cowart. As stated in the quote above, the intentional killing of a patient, otherwise known as active euthanasia, goes directly against what the medical profession stands for. Although Dax had injuries that a man would not wish upon his worst enemy, his death was not imminent. Active euthanasia, which is legal in the Netherlands, has multiple conditions which must be met in order to allow for the 'mercy killing' of a human to occur. These rules include the request of the patient with no outside influence, unbearable pain of the patient, and consultation by at least two physicians. However, even Dax did not meet a couple of the parameters to be eligible for active euthanasia, even in the Netherlands. Firstly, terminally ill refers to the situation in which there is no reasonable medical possibility that the patient's condition will not continue to degenerate and result in death (Arnold). Dax's injuries were horrific, but with the treatment available, death was not imminent. Furthermore, the second condition that must be met on the list of seven in the Netherlands is that there must be no available treatment to improve the patient's condition, which was not the case. Dax's condition would have been improved as long as he allowed and stuck through the treatment.

A counterargument that supports Dax's decision to have the physicians end his life is the idea that the life at stake is in fact Dax's own life, therefore his decision, and giving him treatment is simply 'playing God'. However, what this claim is stating is that Dax, an injured human being, should be allowed to demand the doctors to commit a crime in ending his life. Consider the example of a man who had an inherited a great fortune and then lost it all, with no education or any chance to ever regain the type of wealth that he used to possess. It would be ridiculous to claim that this man, a poor human being, should be allowed to demand somebody to commit a crime, such as rob a bank for his means. If the poor man would like to rob a bank by himself, that is his intentions and his violation of the law, and he would take the correct steps necessary to do so. Similarly, if Dax Cowart would like for his demand of death to come true, he would have to find the means to be cleared from the hospital (which was very possible with patience), and commit suicide by his own means.

Dax's case leads directly to the question of suicide. Kant argues that hypothetically speaking, if Dax Cowart was released from the hospital and ended his own life, he would be going against his moral duties. Kant argues that humans are different than animals and vegetables, as we have dignity and these moral duties which we must uphold, therefore suicide would be wronging oneself (Kant). However, if suicide is nothing more than the wronging of a duty, it seems as if it is not a crime at all. Not showing up