School of Humanities and Social Sciences (SHSS)

Permanent URI for this community

http://hdl.handle.net/11071/3889
The School of Humanities and Social Sciences (SHSS) suceeds the Institute of Humanities, Education and Development Studies (IHEDS)

Browse

Browsing School of Humanities and Social Sciences (SHSS) by Author "Fredrick, Ngatia"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Moral views on euthanasia amongst medical practitioners in Nairobi, Kenya
    (Strathmore University, 2019) Fredrick, Ngatia
    Euthanasia has provoked raging debate since antiquity. Natural law adherents consider that death should occur naturally i.e. without acceleration by human acts and/or omissions which are intended to cause or hasten death. Since ancient times, the position taken by natural law adherents has not been accepted universally. Indeed, eminent thinkers, for instance, Epicurus (341 BC- 270 BC) stoically remarked that one was entitled to quit life's theatre "when the play has ceased to please us" (Amicus, 2011). Divergent views on euthanasia exist to date. Hippocrates (460 BC- 3 77 BC) who is reputed as the father of medicine was against euthanasia. The Hippocratic Oath expressly prohibits doctors from administering any drug that would intentionally induce death. A doctor is expressly required to solemnly affirm that he "will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it nor will I make a suggestion to this effect" (Edelstein, 1943). The two extreme positions, which have origin in antiquity, have persisted to date and no common view is in sight. In the modem world, euthanasia is regarded by a segment of the populace to be empowering and liberating. According to the proponents of euthanasia, one need not experience untold pain and suffering or be subjected to an extended period of treatment. One can liberate oneself from the illness by administration of euthanasia which hastens death instead of medical treatment or procedures which prolong the eventuality of death. Euthanasia is therefore viewed as a mode or vehicle of liberating oneself from pain, suffering, or prolonged treatment. Since no empirical evidence on life after death is available, it is difficult to discern how one weighs the benefit of death instead of the continuance of life, albeit with the discomfort arising from the illness. How death can be liberating instead of a continuation of life is therefore an experimentation with the unknown. This research seeks to ascertain whether euthanasia is administered in Nairobi and if so, the prevalence of the practice. The research also seeks to establish the reasons that patients use to seek euthanasia instead of continuing with life. The research also seeks to ascertain the moral reasons that medical practitioners use to justify the administration of voluntary active euthanasia. The identified reasons are discussed and contrasted with the personalistic philosophy viewpoint. The discussion on moral reasons advanced by medical practitioners is a critical part of this dissertation. A moral reason to justify euthanasia may appear to be a contradiction in that euthanasia is a termination of life. Prima facie, life should continue until death, by a natural process, takes effect. Hence, the question to be considered is whether on account of the grounds advanced by medical practitioners, termination of life can be morally justified. The moral justification is further contrasted with the Personalistic philosophy viewpoint as that is the philosophy that guides this dissertation. Personalist philosophy has deliberately been taken as the regulating philosophical perspective due to the eminence it gives to personhood including the transcendental dimensions.