Utilitarianism Essay example

Physician-assisted suicide is controversial in healthcare and political realms alike. Currently, this end-of-life option is practiced in five states within the United States. Social concerns regarding assisted suicide revolve around ethical quandaries; providing the means to a patient’s death is contradictory to ethical principles of healthcare providers. Political concerns surrounding the legalization of assisted suicide include disparities in healthcare that may lead to certain populations choosing assisted suicide and the stagnation of current care options. While there is no succinct manner in which to declare assisted suicide right or wrong, each individual must address the social and political concerns surrounding the issue when voting for legislation to legalize assisted suicide or pursuing the option for themselves.

The federal legalization of physician-assisted suicide is a conflict of ethics. This is one reason the problem has yet to be resolved. There are multiple sides to this argument. Some people want the government to mandate the legalization of physician-assisted suicide while others believe the practice to be morally unacceptable. Then there are those who do not have enough knowledge on the issue to have an opinion at all. This issue that needs to be brought to Americans’ attention sooner rather than later, because more Americans are being given the opportunity to vote on the topic.

Physician assisted suicide has been a controversial topic all over the world for many years. In the article, “Physician-Assisted Suicide Betrays Human Dignity and Violates Equality Before the Law," author Ryan Anderson believes this choice goes against religious beliefs, that it is inhumane and makes the weak more vulnerable. Others, like author Patti Waldmeir, believe that this is a choice that should be offered to the ones suffering from a terminal illness, as stated in her article, "Oregon's right-to-die act tests reach of federal law over lethal drug doses." This is not a choice that is forced onto patients, it is just a final resort to the ones that cannot live another day in agony. Regardless

Opponents of Act Utilitarianism attempt to argue that Act Utilitarianism (henceforth AU) does not account for justice when applied to ethical dilemmas. It is the authors opinion that these claims are factually incorrect and this essay shall attempt to prove this through analysis of common arguments against AU, and modifying AU to allow for justice to be more readily accounted for.

Assisted suicide is a controversial topic, with surprisingly realistic and convincing arguments from each side. The opposing side of the argument inflicts moral responsibility in anyone researching the topic. The supporters of assisted suicide impose a common argument, “my body, my choice.”.

Among the most glaring problems that I see with Utilitarianism is its inclusion of animals under the umbrella that blankets this theory. It seems irrefutable that there exists an inordinate number of cases where the consequence that is against the best interest of an animal is favorable to humans, yet that dictating action is one that has been continually taken and condoned by the general public. This is a fundamental challenge, as the Utilitarian philosophy decrees that the pleasure and pain experienced by all individuals, including animals, has equal worth and must be considered when determining the net benefit of an action’s consequences.

The process of assisted suicide, or physician-assisted death, is a hotly debated topic that still remains at the forefront of many national discussions today. Assisted suicide can be described as the suicide of patient by a physician-prescribed dose of legal drugs. The reason that this topic is so widely debated is that it infringes on several moral and religious values that many people in the United States have. But, regardless of the way that people feel, a person’s right to live is guaranteed to them in the United States Constitution, and this should extend to the right to end their own life as well. The reasons that assisted suicide should be legalized in all states is because it can ease not only the suffering of the individual, but the financial burden on the family that is supporting him/her. Regardless of opposing claims, assisted suicide should be an option for all terminally ill patients.

In recent years, the matter of assisted suicide for terminal patients has been the topic of many moral and medical debates. Opinions vary greatly, and stand on wholly opposite spectrums. Some people say that a patient should be allowed to decide when they die. However, others believe that morals and medicinal ethics dominate over a patient's desire. My opinion is that is that no medical institution should be allowed to provide assisted suicide, even if it’s for terminally ill patients. There are many reason why I think so.

One of the largest arguments made about physician assisted suicide is it is morally wrong. Supporters of the right-to-die movement, argue that just as courts have found that there is a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment, there is a similar right to ask for medical assistance in dying. When patients reach a point where illness, pain, suffering, and lack of freedom have essentially destroyed their quality of life, supporters contend, they should have the ability to end their lives legally and in a dignified manner. The government, supporters argue, has no right to interfere in this choice (" The Right to Die" ). Assisted suicide proponents argue that it is like abortion, it is a choice issue because doctors have enough knowledge to know when a patient is close to dying. Accredited

"Utilitarianism is characterized by happiness and consequential-ism... Consequential-ism in utilitarianism is in the fact that an action must be judged for its consequences on the happiness of the largest number." (utilitarian philosophy. web) When it comes down to a tough situation, what would a utilitarian do? Now in this paper I will explain exactly what a utilitarian should do in a sticky situation and also explain the reasoning for their actions. For instance, what would a utilitarian do when it came to choosing between their own child or choosing multiple people's lives? The situation would be very difficult without a doubt in mind, but the utilitarians would stick to whatever would lead to the greatest overall happiness.

     Assisted suicide is one of the most controversial topics discussed among people every day. Everyone has his or her own opinion on this topic. This is a socially debated topic that above all else involves someone making a choice, whether it be to continue with life or give up hope and die. This should be a choice that they make themselves. However, In the United States, The land of the free, only one state has legalized assisted suicide. I am for assisted suicide and euthanasia. This paper will support my many feelings on this subject.

The United States is a nation founded on freedoms and liberties, giving each citizen the ability to make their own life decisions. This freedom includes all aspects of one’s life, including medical care. With freedom comes responsibility, and this is true in terms of physician-assisted suicide. The ongoing struggle between those in favor and those opposed to this subject has ravaged the medical field, bringing into question what is morally and ethically right. The fact of the matter is that physician-assisted suicide is neither morally nor ethically acceptable under any circumstance. Not only is it a direct violation of a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath, but it is not constitutionally binding. Physician-assisted suicide would also lead to

The war between life and death will never cease to exist. The reality is that no one can stop this never-ending cycle, many terminally ill patients know this all too well. As time goes on, technology expands, so does the understanding of death itself. For over a decade, there have been several articles produced that focus on the ethical and legal issues that arise with this specific topic. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that there is neither a constitutional right nor a constitutional prohibition of assisted suicide. This ruling allowed for Oregon state to begin to “experimenting” with the legalization. Though, the majority of states continue to stand firmly behind their decision on the legalization of assisted suicide. On one hand, people find this issue to be unethical, that assisted suicide only exterminates the possibility of recovery. On the other hand, people believe that patients who have fought long and hard for survival should be able to decide whether or not they wish to continue their life. So the question stands; Should patients be given the option to end their own life with a physician 's assistance, or should it be deemed illegal in all states?

I think that the topic of Utilitarianism is interesting to me since I find myself using the greatest happiness principle throughout an everyday basis.Utilitarianism is defined as the ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility.Utilitarianism is essentially whichever action creates the most happiness for the greatest number of people is the right answer. People have considered utilitarianism controversial since not everyone agrees that the greatest happiness principle leads to the right choice,but rather to the wrong decision. The way that we approach this issue could potentially have severe consequences, on issues like immigration reform,campus carry,etc, if not agreed upon with the use of the greatest happiness principle. In this argumentative paper, I will argue that using utilitarianism and the greatest happiness principle would lead to the to the right decision.

The theory of Utilitarianism states that actions should be judged as right or wrong depending on whether they cause more happiness or unhappiness. It weighs the rightness and wrongness of an action based on consequences of that action.