Introduction
The arguments of euthanasia/Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) have been pertinent not only in the medical circles but also among philosophers. The main factor that is up for argument in this regard is whether physicians or families of terminally ill patients undergoing immense pain should be allowed to authorize their death by painless means rather than have them live in agony and die naturally. Notably, many argue that it is not right that another person is given the authority to decide on the fate of another individual. The ethical question in this regard is whether families of patients and their physicians should be granted the permission to perform Euthanasia/PAS on the patient.
Examples of the ethical argument in support and opposition of euthanasia/PAS argue in the line of allowing patients to have a peaceful death, ensuring their autonomy, and respecting the virtue of human life as in virtue ethics. In any case, the utilitarian theory which postulates that the rightness or wrongness of an action is derived from its ability to promote happiness or prevent suffering consecutively proves pertinent (Crocker, 2013). That said euthanasia/PAS is ethical because as it is stated by utilitarianism, it promotes happiness by the fact that it ends the pain that is inflicted on the patient and those close to him/her, especially among terminally ill patients. Although virtue ethics objects to this by attesting that a virtuous person should promote life as opposed to ending it, it is evident that it is also wrong to allow another human being to undergo unprecedented pain by letting them live. Therefore, families and physicians should be allowed to authorize euthanasia/PAS if it will prevent suffering and promote happiness while taking the interest of the patient and those close to him at heart.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Ethical Argument
The ethical arguments related to Euthanasia and PAS are nothing short of surprising. One supporting ethical argument insists that human beings should be allowed to have a peaceful or rather meaningful death: A peaceful or meaningful death is seen as that which allows the patient to die in the way of their choosing (Jordan, 2016). In this respect, getting the family or physician to assist the patient to die peacefully is right and thus validates euthanasia/PAS. Second, many have argued that not allowing euthanasia/PAS is paramount to encroaching on an individual’s autonomy (Crocker, 2013). People should be allowed to make life and death decisions as long as it does not negatively affect the freedom of other people. This argument is aligned with the utilitarian ethical theory where if the outcome will result in happiness other than agony such as in terminally ill patients, then euthanasia/PAS is ethical.
When countering the argument of meaningful death, some have argued that there is a risk of a slippery slope as unscrupulous doctors are bound to misuse the concept if it is enacted into law (Boudreau, 2011). Where health costs are soaring, there is need to provide that patients will have a peaceful ending other than having to be killed even when they cannot speak for themselves where they seem to approach death (Boudreau, 2011). A notable opposing view of euthanasia/PAS is also grounded in the concept of human autonomy. According to Boudreau (2011), since both euthanasia and PAS require the involvement of another person, it is evident that it influences the autonomy of the patient in as far as an individual’s freedom to decide for his/her destiny is concerned. Thus, euthanasia/PAS should not be allowed even. The argument applies the virtue ethics where an individual should be the key decision maker on what will happen to him/her. Judging by both arguments, it is evident that supporting euthanasia/PAS is the best course.
Explanation And Defense
Admittedly, utilitarianism provides the best argument for supporting euthanasia/PAS. Utilitarianism holds that the rightness or wrongness of an action is judged by its ability to promote happiness or its reverse consecutively (Feldman, 2006). The utilitarian ethics is associated with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (Feldman, 2006). The history of utilitarianism is based on the notion of describing ethics as being solely comprised of happiness or pain. Therefore, where an action promotes happiness, it is deemed ethical while if it leads to the reverse of happiness which would be pain or suffering, then it is unethical.
Going by the utilitarian perspective, it means that the best argument, in this case, should provide that happiness is assured. When it comes to the point where a patient seems to be undergoing more agony when he/she is alive than when they would be if they were dead, it is apparent that pain/suffering is pertinent here. According to the utilitarian perspective, allowing a person to continue living in agony is unethical. Further, when either euthanasia/ PAS is allowed, it prevents the patient as well as their family from undergoing more suffering. In this case, the suffering is bound to be emotional as well as financial. What better way to die than to die happy? This question evokes the thought that the primary decision on whether to undergo euthanasia/PAS lies on the patient. Where the patient decides to proceed, then the family and physician should take part in promoting happiness. This is ethical as opposed to not doing the contrary and enhancing the suffering of the patient, close relatives, and friends.
Objection And Response
Virtue ethics presents the strongest objection to the supporters of euthanasia/PAS. For one, virtue ethics was introduced by Aristotle, and it argues that a good person is one who lives virtuously by a set of virtues throughout their life (Misselbrook, 2015). This implies that while utilitarianism looks at the act, virtue ethics looks at the person committing the act. About euthanasia/PAS, virtue ethicists argue that euthanasia/PAS should not be allowed for the simple reason that a virtuous person should be one that promotes life rather than destroying it.
In responding to the argument, it is necessary to draw the line as to whether promoting a life that is mired with agony is being virtuous. A virtuous person should be one that allows other people to live a happy and fulfilling life. Take the case of a patient in level IV cancer who is undergoing constant chemotherapies that result in pain, loss of hair and other emotional and physically painful factors. If the patient’s choice is to die rather than experience the pain and dragging their family into it, it defies ethics to say that suffering should be allowed under the pretext that the one who takes part in euthanasia/PAS is disrespecting life. Therefore, euthanasia/PAS should be allowed, and families and physicians can authorize it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, euthanasia/PAS is ethical, and families, as well as physicians, should be allowed to authorize if it alleviates suffering and promotes happiness as prescribed by utilitarianism. Some of the ethical arguments related to euthanasia/PAS include allowing patients a peaceful death and promoting the autonomy of the patient while opposing arguments counter human autonomy and touch on the slippery slope that physicians may misuse the authority. The utilitarian perspective holds that it is necessary to allow euthanasia/PAS because it promotes happiness and prevents pain/suffering. Although virtue ethics presents an objection to this case, critical analysis reveals that a virtuous person should be one who grants other people the ability to live a meaningful life and if living guarantees more suffering than dying, then allowing death is a demonstration of virtue in itself. In the end, families and physicians should be allowed to perform euthanasia/PAS on their patients.
References
Boudreau, J. D. (2011). Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: Can you even imagine teaching medical students how to end their patients' lives? The Permanente Journal , 15(4), pp. 76-84.
Crocker (2013). Why euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are morally permissible. Florida State University Libraries . Retrieved from fsu.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fsu:209906/datastream/PDF/view
Feldman, D. B. (2006). Can suicide be ethical? A utilitarian perspective on the appropriateness of choosing to die. Death Studies , 30(6), pp. 529-538.
Jordan, M. (2016). The ethical considerations of physician-assisted suicide. Dialogue & Nexus , 4, pp. 1-7.
Misselbrook, D. (2015). Virtue ethics – an old answer to a new dilemma? Part 2. The case for inclusive virtue ethics. JRSM, 108(3), pp. 89-92.
