Presentation Title: “Comparative Ethics: Euthanasia for Non-competent Humans and Non-human Animals”

Abstract:

The discussion surrounding euthanasia in relation to humans is a complex interplay between the autonomy principle and the best interest theory. Interestingly, the term "assisted dying," which is often favoured over the term "euthanasia," inherently assumes that the individual being discussed possesses the cognitive ability to make a rational and informed decision regarding their own end of life. This concept is deeply rooted in the idea that an individual's autonomy should guide such a critical choice. The concept of autonomy, however, is not universally applicable to all humans. It is limited to those who are considered self-governing and competent patients. This exclusionary nature means that individuals lacking the cognitive capacity to make autonomous decisions are essentially left out of the discourse surrounding euthanasia. This raises a critical ethical question: What about those who are unable to participate in this discourse due to their lack of competence? In real-world scenarios, we often encounter situations where individuals who might otherwise qualify as candidates for euthanasia are unable to make a logical and reasoned decision to end their own lives. This could be due to various factors such as cognitive impairment, severe illness, or incapacitation. By restricting access to euthanasia exclusively to competent patients, we inadvertently create a moral inequality between those who possess the cognitive capacity to choose and those who do not—a disparity that favours the mentally capable while neglecting the suffering of those who lack competence. This ethical dilemma underscores the need for a broader conversation that encompasses both individuals who lack competence and those who are competent patients. This discourse must explore how we can ethically and compassionately address the needs and wishes of those who are unable to express their preferences regarding their own life and death. In this paper, we will delve into this complex issue by drawing a parallel between humans who lack competence (e.g., non-competent minors) and non-human animal patients. Both groups share the common characteristic of being incapable of making decisions about euthanasia. Through this comparison, we aim to shed light on the moral and practical considerations that arise when discussing euthanasia for individuals who are unable to advocate for themselves in this sensitive matter.