Utilitarian Perspective Euthanasia

To begin, I would like to take a utilitarian approach to the subject of euthanasia. Utilitarians believe that an action should cause the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. As a terminally ill person continues to render further implications of their disease, more and more pain will bestow upon them. They may become bed ridden and unable to enjoy the activities and pleasures that made their life intrinsically good. As time

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

“Doctors and nurses have sworn to preserve life and relieve suffering – but how to do this when the only way to end suffering is to end life?” (Lewis Vaughn, “Bioethics Principles, Issues, and Cases” pp.594) Should there be an upper hand to make these decisions for our healthcare practitioners? Laws have been set in each state that determine the legalization of physician assisted suicide. Although Louisiana is a conservative state when it comes to the issue of physician-assisted suicide, it should be legalized in my opinion. Ethically, there are theories that support this as well as laws given to our practitioners. By rejecting physician-assisted suicide, patients and their families are suffering needlessly.

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

The morality of euthanasia from an extreme utilitarian perspective means acting on what’s best for the vast majority based on one’s particular actions. The morality of euthanasia is determining what is considered to be wrong and right in the eyes of someone with a utilitarian perspective.

Utilitarians are generally in favor of some form of euthanasia since it yields more pleasure than keeping the patient alive. Nevertheless, for an act utilitarian, active euthanasia is oftentimes preferred over passive euthanasia. This is due to the fact that active euthanasia oftentimes reduces the amount of suffering quicker whereas passive euthanasia lets the patient die of his or her own disease which might involves more pain.

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 lawful and good legitimization of acts such as active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are among a portion of the heaviest debatable subjects when talking on the issues that relate to end of life consideration. Fundamentally, these level headed discussions concentrate on the good and legitimate commitments a specialist has, and the contrast between slaughtering a patient. The two theories that are regularly considered and thought about are deontology and utilitarianism, primarily in the works of Kant and Mill. In spite of the fact that deontology would constrain a specialist

When a patient is in immense amounts of pain from a terminal illness, one of the options to relieve a person from the pain is euthanasia. Euthanasia is seen as a controversial and moral issue because of the different viewpoints. Euthanasia is seen by some as killing, while others see it as removing a person from immense amounts of pain. This paper will first discuss the principles of utilitarianism through Bentham and Mill. Next, Rachels argument will be analyzed for his viewpoint on euthanasia.

Euthanasia is most commonly known when used to put down an animal. What about using euthanasia on humans that wish to end their life due to medical reasons? According to Merriam-Webster’s online Dictionary, euthanasia is “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy” (n.d.). This practice is also known as assisted suicide. In the paper I will discuss the ethical issues of euthanasia, why some may think it is the answer, as well as the Christian perspective on euthanasia.

What would you consider a “reasonable decision”? If you had someone’s last seconds at the tips of your fingers, would you fulfill their final wishes, even if they went against your innate values? Where would a physician, or you, draw the line? These questions, among others, have been the cornerstone of many conversations regarding euthanasia. This tricky ethical dilemma attracts attention primarily from individuals in the medical field, but also society as a whole. What doctor would decide that the patient is in the “right” state of mind?

The morality of euthanasia continues to be a controversial topic. Its subject matter, death, is shrouded in emotional feelings that often obscure the logical appraisal of the subject. For opponents of euthanasia, passive and active euthanasia are seen as distinct and subject to different morality rulings. According to Vaughn “Active euthanasia is said to involve performing an action that directly causes someone to die… Passive euthanasia is allowing someone to die by not doing something that would prolong life” (595). In other words, active euthanasia is seen as killing someone while passive euthanasia is seen as simply letting him or her die. This distinction, killing versus letting die, is what is said to constitute the immorality of active euthanasia. It is my belief, however, that there is no moral difference between passive and active euthanasia and both should be considered moral.

Living in the twenty-first century we have seen many great strides in the advancement of medicine and life-sustaining technologies. These advances have resulted in improved life expectancies and quality of life for people around the globe. These medical improvements have raised questions about the appropriateness of life-sustaining treatments in the case of people who are terminally ill and experiencing severe pain and suffering. Are we robbing people of a dignified death by artificially maintaining their bodily systems? Should we really prolong life because we fear death, even though the patients themselves may be ready to die? These questions have received a great deal of attention in recent years, and many people are looking toward euthanasia for the answer.