Euthanasia And The Application Of Utilitarianism

In this essay I will analyze James Rachel’s Smith and Jones case for active and passive euthanasia. I will additionally give an ethical reasoning for why I either agreed or disagreed with his opinion. I will furthermore show how he lures our attention to the dissimilarities amongst his view of killing and allowing someone to die. I will also refine my propositions and reaction of this case in the issue of active and passive euthanasia. Defending Rachel’s case I will argue why I sided with him for his moral argument.

James Rachels: Euthanasia According to James Rachels Euthanasia is an action in which to deliberately end a patient’s life, at the patients request for the patient’s own good. Euthanasia is an action that has not been used as often as I believe it needs to be. The suffering of a patient is something that is unbearable to watch and also very hard to take in what that person is experiencing. In James Rachels outlook he notes both sides of the Euthanasia concept and the arguments on it, furthermore the reason why Euthanasia is permissible.

Utilitarian approach would argue that euthanasia is morally acceptable because it decreases the misery of everyone involved such as the patient, the physicians, and the family and

“Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die?” – James Rachels. At the end of the disagreement, many philosophers say euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is a compassionate method of death. At the other side are the opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this technique as a form of murder. In this paper, I will show that it is not important to know the distinction between killing and letting die on request which is performed by a physician. Both killing and letting die on request are similar because it is based on the controversial issue called euthanasia also known as physician-assisted suicide.

After considering the system of utilitarianism, it is important to take a close look at the roots and depth of euthanasia as it has infiltrated our society. This will include an in-depth look at the overall idea of euthanasia, a history of the laws that have defined euthanasia, a specific case of euthanasia, and how the decision-making system of utilitarianism can be applied to a specific ethical communicative issue within.

From an ethical framework stand point, utilitarian’s would argue for non-voluntary euthanasia. The Utilitarian ultimately rates whether an action is good or bad based on the outcome. Thus, the end outcome might justify the means for doing an action (Burkhardt & Nathaniel, 2008). For example, as discussed previously above, the cost of end of life treatment is often times extremely expensive, not only for the family but also for the economy. Still, when focusing on not only dollar amounts, but also totaling the numbers in the population afflicted with dementia, “around 1% of the population receives support for dementia” (Sharp, 2012), so therefore the number of loved ones affected would be much higher, leading a utilitarian to choose death of the cognitively impaired individual rather than becoming such a burden. By sacrificing one cognitively impaired individual, there will result in greater overall good in the rest of the population in terms of financial and resources.

Act utilitarianism can be used to validate the use of euthanasia in the three case studies that I previously went over. The first case was about the Canadian woman Sue Rodriguez that suffered from ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease. Rodriguez didn’t want the frightening and painful death that was awaiting her in the future if she did not receive physician assisted suicide. Act utilitarianism supports Rodriguez’s right to active euthanasia or physician assisted suicide, because Rodriguez would be receiving a greater amount of happiness through death than she would be by staying alive and suffering the painful and frightening death of suffocation or choking when the final stages of ALS finally destroyed her ability to properly breath. The next two

In the debate over euthanasia, the opponent concludes that euthanasia should be illegal because it is goes against nature, dignity, personal-interests and has a practical effect. On the other side of the debate, the supporter concludes that euthanasia should be legal because moral principles, what it really mean to kill, end suffering, the difference between injury and not injury. In this essay I will conclude that euthanasia should be legal.

John Stuart Mill adjusted the more hedonistic tendencies in Bentham 's philosophy by emphasizing. It is not the quantity of pleasure, but the quality of happiness that is central to utilitarianism. The calculus is unreasonable qualities cannot be quantified. Utilitarianism refers to " the Greatest Happiness Principle" it seeks to promote the capability of achieving happiness for the most amount of people.

One of greatest moral issues facing society today is that of freedom. Freedom is a principle that this country was founded on at the start of its inception. Freedom is still a cause that requires our attention. The great debate on simple liberties such as the right to decide what happens to one’s body is still an issue that society has failed to resolve. It is a moral quandary that will continue to be discussed and a deliberated on as long as humankind are free moral agents with personal moral preferences. The question is do we allow our personal preferences to impede the decisions of other individuals? If we have the right to have our set of moral preferences do, other individuals deserve that same

The ethical issue is Euthanasia, there are many groups that support or oppose this issue. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The different viewpoints are based around whether it is humane to assist someone in dying and whether it should be illegal for someone to assist the death of someone who has a terminal illness and are suffering incurable pain. Groups that oppose the issue generally believe that it is inhumane to end someone 's life early, these groups generally believe these people should be given care and as much comfort as possible until their last days. Groups that support the issue generally believe that if someone has lost their mental state or are suffering unbearable pain that cannot be cured, that they should be allowed the option of euthanasia because it is inhumane to make someone suffer unbearable pain if they do not need to. An ethical issue brings systems of morality and principles into conflict, ethical issues are more subjective and opinionated and generally cannot be solved with facts, laws and truth. Euthanasia is an ethical issue because there are two equally unacceptable options. It is considered wrong

The philosophical theories and ethics of two philosophers, Aristotle and Kant, offer two differing views on the morality of euthanasia. Margaret P. Battin’s “Euthanasia: The Way We Do It, the Way They Do It” offers three countries’ perspectives on and laws regarding euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide, as well as evaluations and critiques of their policies. To determine which of these points of view has the most pertinence, all of these arguments will be outlined and consequently analyzed, both separately and in relation to each other. Their differences and similarities will be enumerated and described, consequently their merit will be discussed. Ultimately, Aristotle’s moral theory centering around eudaimonia will be shown to be superior to Kant’s categorical imperative, because of its flexible nature when evaluating the acceptability of euthanasia under different circumstances.

In fact, according to a recent poll almost 42% of surveyed supported euthanasia and 37% opposed (Fig 1). A lot of controversy surrounding this issue stems from the fact that euthanasia has been analyzed not only from juridical perspective, whether or not it should be legal, but also from various medical, social, philosophical, religious points of view. The topic seems to be extremely relevant not only because it is related to the basic principles of society regarding life and death, but also it affects every person, especially who suffers from a terminal illness. This study tries to indicate possible solutions for some questions related to euthanasia in order to show that in many cases euthanasia can be avoided by adequate treatment and that proper and clearly legislation is necessary to protect patients. For the purpose of this paper, euthanasia can be defined as “conduct that brings about an easy and painless death for persons suffering from an incurable or painful disease or condition” (Muckart, Gopalan, Hardcastle, Hodgson, & McQuoid-Mason, 2014, p. 259). Even though the issue of proper definition of euthanasia is still debatable, the question of classification of euthanasia seems to be less problematic. In fact, many scholars agree that euthanasia may be classified as voluntary (because of the will), non-voluntary (without specific will), involuntary (against the will) and divided according to active (use of lethal substances) and passive options (termination of treatment). Euthanasia differs also from assisted suicide. The former means to help someone to die, the latter means to help a person kill him or

The controversy of a doctor assisting their patient who is already dying, end their life sooner to save them from continuous unnecessary pain and agony has been the topic of controversy for years. The practice of euthanasia is in my opinion a mercy and should not be banned because in reality it doesn’t physically hurt anyone. You could say it hurts the patient but then again that patient is already in tremendous pain or in an incapacitated state of no recovery, as in paralyzed or brain damage etc., so in reality it would actually help them by assisting ending their pain by assisted suicide. A doctors job is also always help their patients and the practice of assisted suicide in many ways is actually helping the person. However there has and probably always will be people who do not agree with the idea of a dying person end their life for sooner than nature had intended. This demographic would suggest that by dying by your own hand or assisted by a physician for medical reasons is still considered plain suicide. And for the religious people it is a sin by their beliefs. The people could also argue that it is not a person’s right to make that decision.

In current times we have made many technological advances that have boosted the medical productivity in hospitals. However, the rapid development of medicine is far from being a long term resolve for many health issues. We have a plethora of people whose quality of life is very low and has no chance of improving. During these situations allowing the person to end their life via euthanasia should be allowed. I will argue that Euthanasia is morally permissible in some cases because there are several moral justifications that argue for ending one’s life.