Rights and Voluntary Euthanasia Essay Example
Rights and Voluntary Euthanasia Essay Example

Rights and Voluntary Euthanasia Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 11 (2819 words)
  • Published: January 3, 2017
  • Type: Research Paper
View Entire Sample
Text preview

The aim of this paper is to analyze voluntary euthanasia from a philosophical perspective and investigate how various moral theories would approach the issue. Historically, philosophers have mainly concentrated on studying suicide, which poses comparable moral challenges as voluntary euthanasia does. By examining the ethical connections between these two subjects, we can understand the viewpoints that influential philosophers might adopt when contemplating voluntary euthanasia.

Patients in this country have the legal right to refuse treatment, even if it could lead to death. However, doctors may obstruct their ability to exercise this right. In contrast, intentionally causing a patient's death at their request is illegal for doctors here but decriminalized in the Netherlands. This paper aims to examine the controversial issues surrounding whether it is morally acceptable for a doctor to deliberately cause a patient's death upon their

...

request and whether there should be a legal change allowing such action.

The topic being discussed, "death with dignity," is multifaceted. Instead of offering a precise definition, the focus will be on exploring the essential aspects of dignity in relation to death with dignity. It is crucial to acknowledge that individuals attribute varying degrees of significance to different elements of dignity. Dignity encompasses factors like independence from others and material possessions, self-control and autonomy, privacy, upholding personal standards in all areas of life, and self-esteem. A death with dignity enables the individual nearing the end of their life to preserve these cherished components of their dignity.

This text explores the various traditional philosophical theories concerning morality, which can be divided into two main categories. One group, known as Consequentialist theories, argues that the morally right action is

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

always the one that produces the best consequences. The other group, called Deontological theories, believes that this is not necessarily true.

Within Consequentialist theories, there are further subdivisions. Egoistic theories only consider the consequences for the person performing the action, while Universalistic theories take into account the consequences for all those impacted by it.

The main focus of this paper is on Universalistic Consequentialism, a rational and secular approach to moral questions that aligns with common-sense reasoning. Later in this discussion, we will also address Egoism.

The issue of determining what qualifies as good consequences is raised within the context of Universal Consequentialism. John Stuart Mill provides a popular response in his essay, Utilitarianism. He defines good consequences as happiness, encompassing pleasure and freedom from physical pain and other forms of distress. According to this perspective, an action is deemed right if it maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain for all those affected. Mill's various works, such as his Essay on Liberty and Utilitarianism, offer another interpretation of good consequences which emphasizes the importance of quality experiences and human development. This viewpoint suggests that the right action is one that promotes higher happiness through self-development and nurturing the rational nature of individuals.

The concept of "Utilitarianism" is understood differently by philosophers. Some view it as Mill's essay, which asserts that good consequences entail pleasure and the lack of pain. Others employ "Utilitarianism" to encompass all types of Universal Consequentialism, where actions are assessed based on their usefulness or utility. In this article, I will refer to distinct variations of the theory as 'Hedonistic' (pleasure-based) Utilitarianism and 'Ideal' Utilitarianism.

Both the Hedonistic Utilitarian and the Ideal

Utilitarian agree that voluntary euthanasia can be justified in certain cases. The Hedonistic Utilitarian states that there are situations where a person's existence causes more pain than pleasure for themselves and others affected by their suffering. They also argue that the resources used to keep them alive could be better utilized to create happiness elsewhere. Similarly, the Ideal Utilitarian supports advocates of death with dignity through voluntary euthanasia. They counter the objection that proper care can prevent pain and distress by emphasizing their goal of surpassing mere absence of suffering. They emphasize preserving dignity and allowing individuals to exercise their autonomy.

Despite defending voluntary euthanasia using the Utilitarian approach, there are notable concerns linked to it. One concern is that this approach may also rationalize involuntary euthanasia. If a sufficient number of people would experience greater happiness and quality of life due to one person's death, the Utilitarian must accept that such an act would be justified. However, for this to be acceptable, it should not cause widespread panic that outweighs the expected increase in happiness.

Utilitarianism poses a general challenge due to the absence of protection for individuals against the majority. According to this approach, an action's moral correctness is determined by its overall consequences. Consequently, as long as the benefits outweigh the losses, the majority has unrestricted power over individuals. The lack of protection for individual rights is a key reason why many reject Utilitarianism, as it often leads to outcomes that contradict our moral intuitions.

The issue of changing laws poses a secondary challenge for Utilitarians. Typically, we assume that the law should align with personal morals, meaning that

if an action is considered right, it should be allowed by the law. However, for Utilitarians, a law is considered right if it is useful. In other words, if having such a law would maximize the desired positive outcomes according to their beliefs.
Some Utilitarians argue that allowing voluntary euthanasia with proper safeguards through a change in the law would indeed achieve this goal. Nonetheless, a more cautious Utilitarian might argue against implementing such a law as they believe it would not lead to the most favorable overall consequences. For example, they may think it could result in increased distress as ill individuals may feel obligated to pursue euthanasia even against their own wishes.

The Utilitarian perspective argues that a law is considered right only if it leads to the best consequences. Hence, a cautious Utilitarian would publicly support maintaining the ban on euthanasia but privately suggest individuals should defy it more often. This inconsistency in advocating for one thing while hoping for another exposes a general problem with the Utilitarian approach, which goes against our moral instincts. Although modern Utilitarians have elaborate responses to these challenges, I will assume these issues cannot be fully resolved and examine an alternative approach.

The Deontologist perspective argues that certain actions are inherently right or wrong regardless of their consequences. Despite being easier to systematize, the Consequentialist perspective is less challenging than the Deontologist view. Deontologists can be categorized into two groups: those who derive separate duties or rights from lists and those who derive all specific duties from one general formula. These lists or formulas are often attributed to reason or rational intuition as their source.

However, a religious philosopher may attribute them to God's commandments, even if they believe that these commandments can be understood through reason rather than religious revelation.

Throughout different centuries, various Deontological philosophers have compiled lists. These philosophers include John Locke in the 17th century, Richard Price in the 18th century, and David Ross and H. A. Prichard in the 20th century. Despite their differing focuses on duties and rights, they can be considered a unified group of Deontological philosophers for our purposes. It is essential to distinguish between two types of rights within this framework. Negative rights protect individuals from specific treatment and require corresponding duties to prevent violations of these rights. Conversely, positive rights entail entitlements to goods or services. Determining the responsible party for ensuring these rights can pose challenges, as exemplified by the right to work.

Voluntary euthanasia is justified by two negative rights found in most lists - the right to not be killed and the right to liberty. These rights align with the duties of not killing and respecting others' liberty, even though killing is generally prohibited. However, there are exceptions such as justified wars, capital punishment, self-defense or defense of others. Comparatively, voluntary euthanasia is easier to justify because it involves an individual who has made a conscious choice. If the belief that life is invaluable prevents killing, this justification can be overturned if the person no longer wants to live.

Opponents of euthanasia often argue that the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is sufficient. However, discussing the issue in terms of rights complicates matters. The right to life implies a duty for others to refrain

from killing someone. Rights can be waived or renounced, and if an individual does so, others are no longer obliged to avoid killing them (although they may still feel compelled for other reasons). Nonetheless, when someone requests voluntary euthanasia, they not only give up the right to avoid being killed but also assert a right to be killed in that specific manner. This raises the question of who bears the responsibility for fulfilling this request, and many doctors comfortable with allowing patients to die or assisting in suicide may not consider themselves as having this obligation.

The idea of freedom or liberty is often seen as a negative right, but it is important to recognize that this right does have limits. I am not allowed to harm others, and if my actions conflict with their desires, we must find a compromise. Additionally, I have specific responsibilities towards certain individuals and possibly general duties to help others thrive – although the existence and extent of this duty are up for debate. However, one could argue that as long as my actions don't harm or disrupt others, fulfill my obligations and contribute to their well-being, and maintain mental stability; then I have the right to make decisions based on my own judgment while others are obliged not to interfere.

When it comes to negative and positive rights, understanding the difference is crucial. A negative right to liberty means that as long as someone is mentally capable, no one can prevent them from ending their own life or helping someone else die. However, this does not mean they have a positive right to receive assistance in

exercising this right. Nevertheless, there may be grounds for questioning why aid is being refused.

Treating life as a mere possession and handling it like any other can make people uncomfortable, possibly due to religious beliefs. This discussion does not argue whether voluntary euthanasia is condemned by Christianity or any religion, as it is a complex issue. However, it's important to acknowledge that believers have the right to their own concerns but should avoid imposing those beliefs on non-believers or those with different interpretations of their faith.

Despite initially seeming to reject voluntary euthanasia, some secular viewpoints prioritize the value of human life. In this article, I will examine two perspectives from the Deontological position that emphasize general principles rather than specific guidelines.

The concept I will explore is Natural Law, which encompasses morality and is distinct from laws created by individual states. It is considered to be based on reason and possibly even ordained by God. However, in this discussion, I will use the term in a more specific way. To me, Natural Law means that the right course of action always aligns with and recognizes human nature - our abilities and goals as individuals - both within ourselves and others. While often influenced by religion and guided by God's intentions for humanity, this idea can also exist outside of religious contexts.

Although many people believe that suicide and voluntary euthanasia go against the natural instinct of self-preservation in humans, it is important to understand that human nature is not solely determined by instinct. The act of choosing one's own death is often viewed as defying nature, but it is

crucial to acknowledge this reality.

The ability of humans to think and evaluate their own well-being allows them to question the usefulness of their instincts. The decision to end one's life incorporates these distinct human capacities and is influenced by the desire to preserve dignity and independence. Therefore, I contend that Natural Law should not prohibit suicide or voluntary euthanasia. Another important principle is Respect for Persons as Ends, which emphasizes valuing individuals for who they are rather than solely fulfilling someone else's desires. Humans have an intrinsic worth that cannot be measured by any material possessions.

Kant developed the idea in the eighteenth century that is easier to revere than to apply. He believed it ruled out suicide as it involves destroying a valuable human self for the sake of a mere wish, such as relieving pain or misery. The same reasoning could be applied to voluntary euthanasia. However, it is not clear if Respect for Persons must condemn all cases of suicide and voluntary euthanasia, especially if personhood is based on reason and capacity for morality. I argue that those who choose voluntary euthanasia actually display Respect for Persons, as they believe it is their autonomy to prevent their personhood from degrading into something less valuable, such as an animal or machine.

The decision to no longer find value in existence exercises distinctly human faculties. The Deontological branches explored in this discussion, specifically the rights to life and liberty, as well as the principles of Natural Law and Respect for Persons, do not inherently prohibit voluntary euthanasia and may even advocate for it. While there are other considerations, these examples demonstrate that

a Deontological approach can allow for euthanasia while also protecting individual rights more effectively than Utilitarianism.

The Deontological approach to the law argues that it should align with morality rather than solely considering practical outcomes like Utilitarianism. If voluntary euthanasia is morally acceptable, then the law should permit it. However, this poses a predicament for Deontologists similar to liberals in the United States who enjoy freedom of speech protected by the constitution, allowing racist and religious abuse without facing legal consequences. Should the law endorse voluntary euthanasia even if it leads to undesirable results? Resolving this issue depends on specific circumstances that I am unable to discuss in detail here. Instead, I will briefly delve into Egoism, which is a branch of Consequentialism mentioned earlier.

The Egoist believes that the correct action is always the one that results in the most favorable outcomes for themselves. There are different interpretations of this principle, depending on whether positive outcomes are measured in terms of maximum pleasure and minimum pain (Hedonistic Egoism) or other beneficial consequences for the individual, like personal growth and thriving.

At first glance, Hedonistic Egoism may seem to promote a life of disregarding anyone who gets in the way, thus contradicting commonly accepted principles of right and wrong. However, philosophers have acknowledged since Plato's time that most people are unable to consistently maximize pleasure in such a manner. The majority lack the strength to do so without consequences and depend on others for their own happiness. Therefore, it is not reasonable to dismiss Hedonistic Egoism hastily. Nonetheless, there may still be situations where both Hedonistic Egoism and Hedonistic Utilitarianism call for

ruthless actions. For example, they would support involuntary euthanasia if a doctor or caregiver personally benefits from someone's death, lacks sufficient care for the victim's mourning process, and can successfully hide their wrongdoing from any potential objectors. If these individuals were rational, they wouldn't feel guilty as they consider their actions justified according to their beliefs. However, a doctrine that prescribes such behavior - even under exceptional circumstances - deviates too greatly from our conventional moral values to be convincing.

However, Higher Egoism is different. Aristotle's belief is that the correct approach in life is not to seek personal pleasure, but to cultivate our own growth and encourage our best selves. The ideal self is selfless, nurturing friendships where friends are like a mirror image, and possesses all moral virtues, including acts of kindness and fairness towards others.

This form of Egoism challenges the distinction between self and others, rather than always prioritizing our own well-being. It is challenging to criticize it based on conventional moral views. However, it does not provide much guidance for our actions. To develop the virtues that Aristotle discusses, we must first understand which actions are virtuous. The appeal of Aristotle's approach today lies in its ability to offer a broad framework for both moral and non-moral aspects of life, rather than providing specific guidance. According to Aristotle, we inherently seek our perceived good, which may be true. However, he aims to persuade us to have a noble perspective on what constitutes as good by embracing the idea that our true welfare lies in becoming the best version of ourselves. He highlights the distinct nature of humanity and

how leading a fulfilling life involves utilizing our rational faculties effectively. His viewpoint aligns well with the concept of dying with dignity while upholding these values.

This paper aims to demonstrate how different established philosophical moral theories can be utilized to address the issue of death with dignity. The author asserts that voluntary euthanasia is not necessarily prohibited by any of these theories and, in fact, some can offer a compelling rationale in support of it.

Get an explanation on any task
Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
New