Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory that claims that the morally right action is the one that produces more good and fewer dire consequences for everyone than any other action. Rule utilitarianism is a version that emphasizes the importance of following rules that promote the most important overall happiness or well-being for the most significant number of people. James Rachels, in his work "More Impertinent Distinctions and a Defense of Active Euthanasia," argues that in the case of euthanasia, "if an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned, and violates no one's rights, then that action is morally acceptable." He argues that "in at least some cases, active euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone concerned …show more content…
According to Rachels, allowing individuals to make decisions about their own lives, including the decision to end their own lives, is an essential aspect of respect for autonomy. Rule utilitarians might argue that respecting people's autonomy promotes overall happiness by allowing them to live according to their values and preferences. Additionally, allowing euthanasia is a way to alleviate suffering for individuals who are facing terminal illnesses or unbearable pain. Reducing suffering is a critical aspect of promoting overall happiness, and allowing euthanasia might be seen as a way to achieve this goal. Since no one is happy while suffering, they want to be alleviated from said suffering as fast as possible. Rule utilitarians might also argue that allowing euthanasia is a way to improve the quality of life for individuals who are facing terminal illness or unbearable suffering. If an individual's quality of life is inferior, they might feel that their life is not worth living and that ending their own life is the only option. Allowing euthanasia in these cases might be seen as a way to promote overall happiness by allowing individuals to make decisions that reflect their values and
Euthanasia should be permitted everywhere around the world because all individuals have the right to determine their future either by choosing death or the right to live. For instance, in the novel Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck the companionship of Candy and his dog is very strong as they stay together all day long. Candy’s dog has become very old and weak in which he is forced to give up his life since he was no use. According to the text, “He ain’t no good to you, Candy. An’ he ain’t no good to himself.
Rachels looks at the utilitarian argument which states that if an action increases happiness or decreases unhappiness it is morally acceptable, therefore killing a suffering patients, who requests to die, decreases their unhappiness and can be morally acceptable However, Rachels doesn’t see this argument as sound because happiness and unhappiness are not the only things to consider morally. To argue this Rachels uses the example that limiting religion may increase happiness, but that doesn’t make is morally acceptable because it denies people the ability to make their own decisions. Rachel then goes to create his argument, which uses both a mercy and utilitarian approach. The mercy argument justifies euthanasia when it puts an end to a patient’s agony and suffering. Rachels uses an example of a twenty eight year old man named Jack who suffers from terminal cancer.
This theory states that the actions that always create maximum utility, thereby founded on experienced situations, should be formed into rules. Therefore, actions are judged in relation to the conformity of these prescribed rules. However, even if a rule is created as to ‘never kill another human being’, utilitarianism would only pursue to exist if and only if each situation was responded to with the consequence of always maximizing utility. In the situation that the rule was always followed, the existence of utilitarianism would be extinguished as there would always be exceptional situations that need the rule to be adjusted and thus, the utilitarian would be obliged to forgo the rule in order for the doctrine to survive. Therefore, rule utilitarianism is used as a faulty appeal to
American political leader Anna Eleanor Roosevelt once said, “The purpose of life is to live it, to taste experience to the utmost, to reach out eagerly and without fear for newer and richer experience.” There are some people that live their lives happily everyday while there are some that are living in bitterness. Life is a cycle that everyone experiences from childhood to adolescence to adulthood and finally ends with death. Some may believe that maybe if a human being is no longer content with life anymore, then he or she might as well no longer be alive. The issue of euthanasia has been one of the most discussed ethical situations among healthcare workers and patients.
One thing to note is that a lot of individuals suffering from a terminal illness usually are financially struggling, which could cause them to feel like a burden and to possibly consider euthanasia (Katherine, 2023). Another moral value used to justify the position of supporting euthanasia is happiness, suggesting that euthanasia increases happiness and decreases misery in the world. Using this moral value to justify their position does not work because it is too broad. It could be argued that euthanasia is justified as long as it increases happiness and decreases misery. This could justify the killing of an innocent individual.
Utilitarian relates to euthanasia because utilitarianism means that if an action benefits a group than it is justified by the church. Many church groups believe in utilitarianism. However, it reject moral codes that are based on customs, tradition or beliefs. Utilitarianism is also the core idea of wrong actions will leave to negative things and vise versa. The church something is sinful based on the consequences that come with it.
People may ask “Why is it the right thing to do?” In order for people to have an answer to that question they must first know what Euthanasia is and how that if you have the mind set of all life is precious like Kant’s exert in the article of euthanasia chapter three of contemporary moral issues you are being selfish. According to Dictionary.com the definition of Euthanasia is “mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or
Despite the opposition, there is public support for assisted dying, to give people the option to die with dignity and without unnecessary suffering . The ethical theories and principles underlying assisted dying add to the case for reform. Utilitarianism holds that allowing individuals to end their suffering is morally justified if it increases overall happiness and decreases overall suffering . While deontological ethics has traditionally been opposed to assisted dying, it can be interpreted through patient-centred deontology to justify it autonomy and respect for persons .
First, passive euthanasia creates the absence of pain and suffering, thereby promoting a high quality of life. Second, it promotes individuals’ right to exercise their autonomy, in order to end the pain and suffering they experience from their terminal illness. Lastly, it ultimately eliminates pain and suffering altogether from an individual experiencing a terminal illness, allowing a peaceful death. Euthanasia is therefore inherently good as its essence and intent is to provide a good
People have the right to autonomy over their own lives and bodies. This means that people should have the freedom to make decisions about their own lives, including the decision to end their suffering. Assisted suicide provides people with the means to do so in a dignified and painless manner, allowing them to retain control over the end of their lives. Another argument in favor of assisted suicide is that it can provide people with relief from intense physical and psychological suffering. In some cases, people may be faced with a terminal illness or chronic pain that cannot be alleviated, leading to a reduction in the quality of life.
The individuals who argue that euthanasia should be legalized believe that it is an end to suffering. That if you see a patient is in pain and is unable to endure it, they should have the right to end it. It is the easiest and most painless way to end a person’s life. They also believe that is it death with dignity, patients who are severely ill are unable to do simple things such as using the restrooms or bathing themselves. And it is not easy for many people to ask anyone, even a relative, to help them out with such things.
Imagine having to endure so much pain and suffering for a majority of your life that you would just want it all to end. Well, there is a way one can stop their own pain and suffering and it is called euthanasia. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease. The act may only be done solely to those diagnosed with terminal illnesses such as cancer, aids, and heart disease. Many people agree with the idea of euthanasia as it can help those who are suffering be stripped of all the pain they are enduring.
From an economic standpoint, euthanasia is a brilliant alternative. Though many see it as unethical, it may be relieving for the victims to know that once they’ve passed they’re no longer considered burdens to their families. Though harsh, keeping a terminally ill person alive for a year costs no less than $55,000, dying in a dignified way is their last resort when they know their condition is not going to improve. Many patients with incurable diseases have stated that the lengthy and expensive time and operations granted by their families are not worth the few extra months they get of spending time on Earth.
In this case, healthcare professionals actively participate in the patient death. According to ethical principles, healthcare professionals should do good and do no harm for patients. Therefore, assisting in her death violates the principle of nonmaleficence. In addition, active euthanasia defines as an intentional act of ending patients lives, whether or not the dying patients request. Four states, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Montana have approved laws of the practice of physician-assisted suicide.
Another situation could involve, a persons inability to function and complete ADLS (actions of daily living) on their own or their mental state is compromised to an extreme extent including mental illnesses that causes them to be a harm to themselves or others. Also, terminal cancers or illnesses such as cystic fibrosis, ALS, or AIDS etc should be able to choose euthanasia if their current state is unbearable and in their eyes death would be welcomed. However, in order for euthanasia to work without it actually being murder it would need to be in a persons will prior to these incidents since once these horrific events occur the patients can no longer consent for themselves. Personally, I am for euthanasia. If a person knows they aren't going to survive and have terminal illnesses that cause suffering and cannot have a good quality of life, I can understand the mentality to want to skip the pain and suffering and to die in peace before symptoms get even more