Applying Ethics to Moral Reasoning behind Euthanasia

Ethical Question 

Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide (PAS) are among the most controversial questions that confront mankind today (Kumar et al., 2017). These operations are being presented as acts of mercy that are designed to end the suffering of patients who are enduring unbearable pain. While there are arguments in favor of ending the lives of these patients, there are many who believe that it is not the place of man to determine when the life of another should end. The ethical question that will be explored in detail in a later section is whether physicians and families of terminally ill patients experience immense pain should be permitted to authorize or perform euthanasia/assisted suicide.

Introduction 

To gain a full understanding of the controversy and the ethical questions surrounding euthanasia and PAS, it is important to begin with a brief background of these issues. What makes euthanasia and PAS controversial is the fact that they involve violating the sanctity of human life. These operations are usually performed on patients who are terminally ill and have low chances of recovery. As noted above, these operations are meant to end the suffering that the patients endure. In the recent past, more and more Americans have been endorsing these operations. A recent Gallup poll established that as many as 72% of the American people support terminating the lives of hopelessly and terminally ill patients (Brenan, 2018). This finding underscores the fact that euthanasia and PAS are issues that concern the public. It is therefore important to consider the perspectives of the American public when developing official positions on the ethical status of the two operations.

The introduction to the ethics of PAS and euthanasia would not be complete without a look at some of the landmark cases and significant developments. In April 2018, David Goodall, a renowned scientist from Australia underwent Euthanasia (Bever, 2018). His gained garnered immense media attention because of his status and the fact that he travelled to Switzerland to end his life. In nearly all cases, PAS and euthanasia involves terminally ill patients. Goodall’s case was rather strange and different. This is because his rationale for seeking to end his life is that he was sad and that he felt too old and ready to die. His case underscores the politics and ethical questions surrounding euthanasia and PAS. Moreover, as one examines his case, they are able to recognize that euthanasia and PAS are being expanded beyond terminally ill patients.

Explanation of Ethical Theory 

There are various ethical theories that one can use to develop their perspective on euthanasia and PAS. However, utilitarianism is the most relevant and offers the best solution to the question of whether euthanasia and PAS are ethical procedures. Essentially, utilitarianism stipulates that when confronted with an ethical dilemma, one needs to examine the consequences of each course of action. They should then opt for the choice that delivers maximum benefit to the maximum number of people (Lazari-Radek & Singer, 2017). Utilitarianism has a long and intriguing history. Its origins can be traced to the 17 th century. During this period, it was felt that individuals needed to maximize human happiness by examining the outcomes of their actions (Driver, 2014). The theory underwent some refinement and evolution thanks to the insight of such philosophers as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Bentham posited that human actions should be assessed on the pain and pleasure that they cause. He advised that humans should take decisions that maximize pleasure while keeping pain at minimum levels (Driver, 2014). Mill introduced the idea of quantifying pleasure and pain. Together with Bentham, they revolutionized how mankind explores ethical dilemmas.

Now that the history of utilitarianism has been outlined, the set is stage to analyze the primary moral principle that underlies this theory. As already noted, this theory holds that when exploring options to an ethical dilemma, one should focus on the consequences. The option that yields the most benefit while minimizing harm. To understand how this principle works, it is essential to consider an example. Utilitarianism can be applied to the question of withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan. If the US chooses to bring the troops back home, it will minimize casualties, enable Afghan forces to safeguard their people, reduce the economic burden of the military operations in Afghanistan and focus on more pressing security issues. On the other hand, if the US chooses to keep its troops in Afghanistan, it will continue to lose soldiers while incurring huge amounts every year. Applying utilitarian ethics to this example, it is evident that the US should withdraw its troops since this course of action yields the most positive outcomes.

Application of Ethical Theory 

Utilitarianism helps to shed light on the issues of PAS and euthanasia. Any individual who applies this theory objectively to these issues will reach the conclusion that the operations are morally justifiable since their positive outcomes outweigh the harm that they case. One of the arguments that are usually presented in defense of PAS and euthanasia is that these operations relieve terminally ill patients of needless pain, anguish and suffering (Robin, 2013). For example, patients with terminal cancer suffer untold pain that greatly erodes the quality of their lives. Keeping such patients alive is cruel and does them little good. Another benefit that euthanasia and PAS deliver is that they spare families of terminally ill patients the agony of witnessing the patient suffer and waste away. It is indeed painful for families to watch their loved ones suffer and the family is unable to help relieve their pain. Reducing the economic burden of treating terminally ill patients is yet another benefit of PAS and euthanasia. It is rather pointless to spend huge amounts on treating patients with no chance of recovery. The fact that a majority of physicians are in support of euthanasia and PAS further strengthens the argument that these operations are morally justifiable (Parpa et al., 2008). It is worth noting that euthanasia and PAS are not without negative outcomes. Violating the sanctity and dignity of human life is among these outcomes. However, as is clear from this discussion, the positive outcomes far outweigh the negative effects. Therefore, it has been established that when one applies utilitarian ethics, they should be led to the conclusion that PAS and euthanasia are in line with morals and ethical guidelines.

References

Bever, L. (2018). This Australian scientist just turned 104. Now he’s flying to Switzerland to Die. The Washington Post. Retrieved August 13, 2018 from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/04/30/a-scientist-just-turned-104-his-birthday-wish-is-to-die/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e7d92648249f

Brenan, M. (2018). Americans’ strong support for euthanasia persists. Gallup. RetrievedAugust 13, 2018 from https://news.gallup.com/poll/235145/americans-strong-support-euthanasia-persists.aspx

Driver, J. (2014). The history of utilitarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Retrieved August 13, 2018 from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

Kumar, A., Naqdi, S., Giyanwani, P. R., Yousuf, F., Mansoon, A., & Kumar, D. (2017). Euthanasia: a controversial entity among students of Karachi. Cureus, 9 (7), e1510.

Lazari-Radek, K., & Singer, P. (2017). Utilitarianism: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Parpa, E., Mystakidou, K., Tsilika, E., Sakkas, P., Patiraki, E., Pistevou-Gombaki, P., & Vlahos, L. (2008). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in cases of terminal Cancer: the opinions of physicians and nurses in Greece. Medicine, Science, and the Law, 48 (4), 333-41.

Robin, G. (2013). The case of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. The Australian Humanist, 109.