How Utilitarianism Evaluates Euthanasia
This post was written with the help of the author: Jim Baker is a bachelor in English philology and literature at Oregon University. He is currently working as one of the best writers at the https://essaywritingstore.com/ He also studies feminine psychology.
For many years, the topic of euthanasia has caused an ambiguous response in society.
Attention to the problem of euthanasia has increased with technological progress, in particular - life support technologies. Even though numerous disputes on this issue constantly break out among physicians, lawyers, psychologists, politicians, and religious leaders, there is still no clear answer to the question of justification of the practice of euthanasia. This essay will describe how euthanasia as an ethical issue would be evaluated by the theory of utilitarianism and which steps would be taken to taken to analyze this ethical issue.
One of the plausible moral theories, which will be discussed in the paper in detail, is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a philosophical view or an ethical theory, where the moral value of an act or behavior is determined by its utility. In this case, the act is justified by the achievement of benefits, pleasure, estimated by the result. Utilitarianism can evaluate such things as policies, actions, laws, moral codes and character traits. An English philosopher and jurist Jeremy Bentham is considered the founder of this movement in ethics. John Stuart Mill is also among important contributors to the development of utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism derives from Consequentialism that implies that consequences are the only criteria, according to which one can decide whether action is right or wrong. Utilitarians believe that the basis of morality is common welfare. All people want to make a better life by doing good things that will bring happiness and pleasure and decrease suffering. More specifically, everything that brings pleasure to people may be considered useful and the opposite of pleasure is harmful.
It might seem that utilitarianism is not a complicated theory because it is based only on one principle of evaluating concrete issues: one should do what leads to the best results and maximizes utility. However, to understand this essential principle there is a need to know answers to the following questions. First, one needs to understand what is bad and good. Next, one should understand the good of which individuals and groups should be maximized. Another issue is which actions are wrong or right judging by their consequences. Applying these principles of how to evaluate an act, one can assess a concrete issue under utilitarianism theory.
Euthanasia is the practice of intentional termination of life in order to stop one’s suffering from an incurable disease and relieve pain. The word ‘euthanasia’ was first used by Francis Bacon in the 16th century as the definition of ‘easy death’. In other words, euthanasia is accelerating the death of those who experience severe pain, thus giving an individual the opportunity to die. There are two main types of euthanasia. First type is passive euthanasia that means the termination of medical maintenance therapy. Another type is active euthanasia that implies giving special medicines or other actions that presuppose quick and painless death. Active euthanasia is often classified as a suicide with the help of medical assistance. In addition, it is necessary to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is conducted by the request of the patient. At the same time, involuntary euthanasia is carried out without the consent of the patient, as a rule, when the patient is in a state of unconsciousness. Thus, the decision to perform this type of euthanasia is made by relatives, guardians, and so on.
Euthanasia is against the law in most countries around the world. Any action that leads to death is traditionally estimated as harmful and therefore, invalid. However, supporters of euthanasia believe that it is the right treatment aimed at the elimination of unbearable pain. If pain is continuous, the aid to the patient who asks for an easy death can be seen as humane and compassionate. In those countries, where euthanasia is permitted, the law states that it should be performed by medical workers, which is a very serious ethical problem. The Hippocratic Oath in its traditional form is contrary to the implementation of the idea of euthanasia. In addition, the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is considered a major problem. At least in some cases, it is acceptable to discontinue treatment and give the patient to die, but it is never allowed to take any direct action to kill the patient.
Euthanasia refers to one of the most keenly debated issues as it raises such questions as whether a person has a right to freely end his life, where the boundary between life and death lies, whether it is always good for man to continue suffering, and so on. The answers to these and other questions involve deep layers of human existence, the fundamental values ??of society. The problem is how perfectly sublime morality can fit with reality that is far from moral ideal. Utilitarianism believes that an action should bring the greatest happiness and the result shows moral worth. As it was mentioned above, euthanasia will decrease pain by ending life; therefore, it will increase happiness, which is morally correct.
The concepts of good and evil are used as the evaluation criteria. It appears that life is not always good and death - evil. Life is good only when it is brought up to normal standards, filled with certain benefits. When these basic benefits are absent, the good for a man may be death. In addition, there is a need to estimate the results of actions. When a person is terminally ill, they cannot enjoy the pleasure of the benefits of a healthy life. In this case, euthanasia will increase utility of the action. There is also a need to consider the two types of euthanasia in the frames of utilitarianism, which might cause ambiguous reasoning. The difference between these two actions underlines the fact that passive euthanasia is considered as interference with the inevitability of death, while active euthanasia is the intentional introduction of drugs or performance of the act with direct intent of causing death. Utilitarians would say that active euthanasia should be used in order to alleviate the suffering of the terminally ill, whereas passive euthanasia means avoiding direct exposure that will lead to death and it is harmful to the patient.
Based on utilitarianism, euthanasia could have a positive effect. The principle of the utility should be considered as one of the factors, which along gives the opportunity to evaluate the act comprehensively. Most utilitarians support euthanasia, guided by an assessment of the consequences that follow it. Going by utilitarian moral, the death of a patient in one case is the right thing and in other, it is immoral. Everything depends on the consequences of the act itself, depending on how much happiness is brought by particular death.
By analyzing how utilitarianism moral theory would evaluate such an ethical issue as
euthanasia, one can conclude that it might be considered as a good thing for people and have a positive effect. However, even though utilitarianism is an accepted moral theory, it comes along with some problems that need to be considered. In fact, it can be harmful to people by trying to achieve overall well-being. It means that every person differs from others, and what is a pleasure for one, might be a suffering to another.
