Acts of euthanasia occur when a person, upon request, aids or procures the death of a patient who has no reasonable prospects of recovering and is in great pain and suffering. In this scenario, the patient is better off dead than alive due to untold suffering and misery that he or she is experiencing. Therefore, the beneficiary of the acts of voluntary euthanasia is the patient for whose good the process is performed. Various theories have been forwarded either for or against the voluntary euthanasia. The paper analyzes the utilitarian theory that supports voluntary euthanasia and reviews the deontological theory that opposes the voluntary euthanasia with a view of offering a comparative review both approaches.
Utilitarian Approach To Voluntary Euthanasia
Various theories have been forwarded with the aim of supporting voluntary euthanasia. The major props of the theory include the fact that euthanasia extends the scope of personal decisions and choice (Archbishop Anthony Fisher, 2015, September 30). Moral propositions are supporting euthanasia claim that it offers options regarding life without harming other people.
In exercising decisions that determine when and how to end ones life, a person has an excellent opportunity to establish the course of their lives. The process and extent of determining the course of life go to the decision on whether and when they die. A decision on when a person dies is an absolute and an indispensable exercise of the fundamental liberty that anyone should possess and retain at all times. It offers the patients and opportunity to die in a state of dignity. One does not need to endure endless pain and suffering in the name of preserving life. Cases of people suffering intolerable pain due to illnesses are now common phenomena.
In some instances, it is not a question of whether a person will die of a disease, it is barely a question of when and after how much suffering (Lazaridis, 2017).Voluntary euthanasia provides options on whether one should opt to die or to live rather than remaining fixed to the circumstances and set health conditions. To this extent, voluntary euthanasia provides a timely, humane, and a likely option for one to chart the path of their lives.
The existence of voluntary euthanasia and legality of the process means that people can live in peace knowing that they cannot be kept alive through the use of life support machines or other related ways (Mosser, 2013). The option offers great peace of mind since being kept alive is equivalent to being held hostage regarding health and life. It is against any basic provisions of personal liberty and freedom to use a machine or any gadget to restrain someone from dying when they are in great suffering, and there are no reasonable prospects of recovery.
Staying long in hospitals do not guarantee health and wellness.
Most of their terminally ill patients may only continue in hospitals only for the economic and the emotional burden to their families (Archbishop Anthony Fisher, 2015, September 30). Moreover, they may even be under great distress when they think of the fiscal weight that their families have to bear for them. The worst case scenario is when there are hopes of recovery. Utilitarians argue that in such situations, a voluntary euthanasia would offer the greatest happiness for the majority involved.
Deontological Theory Against Voluntary Euthanasia
The process of deciding about death arguably offers the hardest choice for any human being. Nevertheless, it is a challenge that everyone one must face at one stage of life or another. From the face of the record, it would appear that it is intrinsically bad for a person to request their death (Campbell, 2016). However, though the concept is against the ethics, it does not form the core of why the proponents of the deontological approach are opposed to voluntary euthanasia.
The four basic tenets of voluntary euthanasia include beneficence, justice, nonmalafides, and autonomy (Mosser, 2013). The basic concept is that a patient should be free to decide their course of life. Nevertheless, the fact that at voluntary euthanasia embraces options where family members can make a decision on behalf of a terminally ill patient is contrary to the autonomy tenet. A decision made in the name of an individual can never be equated with what they would have made since their considerations cannot be determined.
Deontologists argue that the accuracy of a decision is influenced by consequents and the intrinsic nature of an act (Mosser, 2013). In other words, as Emmanuel Kant once put it, humans must not be used as a means to a predetermined end by anyone. Therefore, no one should at the time be justified to make a decision to consent a voluntary euthanasia on behalf of another.
The right to life is a fundamental right to any human being. Moreover, no one should limit or interfere with this right (Campbell, 2016). It is legally clear that an individual has no liberty to take his or her life. Optioning to give people an option to either take up voluntary euthanasia is equivalent to allowing people to determine their lives or better still, to commit suicide. Such an act is hugely condemned by the universal code of ethics and morality. Euthanasia is inherently immoral.
The patient acting as an agent, as provided for Emmanuel Kant, goes beyond the scope provided above analysis. Kant believes that the person who has made a decision will use the physician as a means of achieving their end (Campbell, 2016). This occurs in the cases where the decision has been made on behalf of the patient. At this juncture, it is clear that the physician who is administering the fatal dose is a means to an end and the patient is the end itself. Deontologists argue that such an approach is against the basic concept of autonomy and justice as the fundamental foundation of the practice of euthanasia.
Voluntary euthanasia based on utilitarianism builds on the the greatest happiness for the greatest majority (Mosser, K. (2013). At this stage, the decision to execute a voluntary euthanasia is based on monetary considerations or the emotional weight of the family. Such considerations should not play any role in the process of determining the course of the life of an individual who is infinitely valuable, possesses inherent dignity, and has the liberty to make rational choices.
On the face of the emotions, the family may directly or indirectly pressurize the patient to request for euthanasia (Campbell, 2016). At this extent, no one should claim that the euthanasia was voluntary. Moreover, the emotional and the fiscal burden may sway the family into deciding to adopt voluntary euthanasia on behalf of the patient. Similarly, this cannot be termed as a case of voluntary euthanasia. Life is inherently valuable, and human dignity is priceless. However, no one would argue any ending of such a valuable life would amount into a dignified undertaking.
Conclusion
The deontological and the utilitarian theories raise weighty issues about voluntary euthanasia. The major point of concern, however, revolves around the moral foundation either for or against voluntary euthanasia. Throughout the paper, the utilitarianism approach appears to have a more important premise on why voluntary euthanasia is morally and legally permissible.
The argument flows from the need to enhance the dignity of patients and to respect the choices they make about their lives. One should not be allowed to suffer unreasonably even when there are no probable chances that they will recover. At the same time, the emotional and fiscal burden should not be allowed to mount unchecked even when the patient may never recover. On the other hand, the deontologists believe that human beings should not be used as a means to an end. Therefore, no one should claim to have the moral authority to determine whether the life of another person comes to a close. Moreover, the claim of the greatest benefit to the most significant majority cannot be equated with a choice of whether a person lives or dies. The emotional and fiscal burden cannot replace any life lost. Throughout the paper, it is evident that there are many moral loopholes and conceptual basis that need to be mended to enhance an effective voluntary euthanasia.
References
Archbishop Anthony Fisher OP. (2015, September 30) The Euthanasia Debate Sinver v Fisher- Should Voluntary Euthanasia be Legalised? [video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/iC6WEFuhk6o
Campbell, D. (2016). Real Control over death: A critical evaluation of the voluntary euthanasia
debate. Australian Rationalist, The, 101, 31.
Lazaridis, C. (2017). Ending Life in the ICU: The Vacuity of Sanctity. Critical care medicine,
45(6), e628.
Mosser, K. (2013). Understanding philosophy [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/
Request Removal
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the customtermpaperwriting.org website, please click below to request its removal:
