Assisted Suicide, Morally Wrong or Your Right

com) However, there are three terms that are sometimes used interchangeable when discussing assisted suicide; physician assisted suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia. Physician assisted suicide is when a physician intentionally gives the patient the method of suicide, such as pills.Assisted suicide involves a layperson or a non-physician who is equipping the patient with the means to kill themselves. Euthanasia is when the person is directly killed by a physician or a layperson; euthanasia can be voluntary, involuntary or non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is at the patients request, involuntary is against the patients request or consent and non-voluntary is without the patient’s knowledge.

(Nightinggale. com) In this paper we will explore the morality and ethics of assisted suicide by comparing and investigating the Utilitarian , Kantian and Egoism ethical perspective of assisted suicide or euthanasia.Utilitarian ethics is the theory that the starting point of ethics is the principal that everyone, humans and creatures alike, want to enjoy pleasures and avoid suffering. Starting from this principal ethics becomes a calculation of how to balance the greatest pleasure over suffering. (Waller, 2008, p.

50) According to utilitarian John Stuart Mill, “Actions are right as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce pain or the reverse of happiness. ” (Defining Utilitarianism) Jeremy Bentham's Hedonic Calculus of utilitarian ethics states that we should always try to perform that act that leads to the greatest pleasure. This raises the question as to how we are to quantify pleasure; if we cannot put a value on the quantity of pleasure that an act produces, then we cannot compare it to other acts in order to decide which of them we ought to perform. ” (The Hedonic Calculus) The basic principal is that pleasure and pain are the only relevant factors in ethical decision making.

This calculus can be used to weigh out the pleasure and pain caused different actions. In the case of a terminally ill patient that has no hope of recovery and is in constant pain, do you help them die or do nothing and let nature take its course?It seem that that the only way to achieve the greatest pleasure for the patient and minimize the most pain would be to implement euthanasia. We have to look at the type of pain that the patient is enduring as well. The type of pain caused by an advanced, terminal illness could clearly score a negative value in the pain vs.

pleasure variable. The progression of the ailment would or could render the patient to be unable to enjoy any semblance of a good quality of life. Due to this diminished capacity of live there would be no emotional pleasure that could balance the physical pain that the patient would have to endure.The ability to have one’s family around could bring a measure of comfort to a patient, but if they are in unbearable pain they would not be able to effectively communicate with their loved ones and therefore not be able to rationally enjoy the comfort. In most terminally ill patients scenarios the patient’s pain increases with time till they are quite unable to deal with the pain without heavy medication that renders them unconscious. In contrast if a patient was allowed to die, his death would reduce his misery.

His loved ones would also be spared the pain of watching their loved one suffer through immense prolonged pain. There would also be the added factor of opening up room for more treatable patients in the hospital. The family’s resources would not be depleted on a patient with no hope of recovery or palatable quality of life. It is important to understand that utilitarian ethics requires the evaluation of all the effects of a course of treatment on everyone involved. How will a course of treatment affect the quality of happiness or misery in each person’s life?Traditional utilitarian justifications against killing do not seem to apply to voluntary euthanasia. Peter Singer stated that “The classical utilitarian objection does not apply to killing that takes place only with the genuine consent of the person killed.

That people are killed under these conditions would have no tendency to spread fear or insecurity, since we have no cause to be fearful of being killed with our own genuine consent. If we do not wish to be killed, we simply do not consent.In fact, the argument from fear points in favor of voluntary euthanasia, for if voluntary euthanasia is not permitted we may, with good cause, be fearful that our deaths will be unnecessarily drawn out and distressing. In the Netherlands, a nationwide study commissioned by the government found that 'Many patients want an assurance that their doctor will assist them to die should suffering become unbearable. ' Often, having received this assurance, no persistent request for euthanasia eventuated.

The availability of euthanasia brought comfort without euthanasia having to be provided. (Taking Life: Humans) To truly evaluate assisted suicide form a utilitarian perspective, we must consider the argument that, what if suddenly there becomes a cure for the patient’s disease? Just because this is a possible outcome, does not negate the viability of euthanasia. John Stuart Mill stated that “actions are right to the degree that they tend to promote the greatest good for the greatest number. It is not always clear what the outcome of an action will be, nor is it always possible to determine who will be affected by it.

Judging an action by the outcome is therefore hard to do beforehand. (Notes on Utilitarianism) You must take into consideration that medical science is a painstaking process that is not given to timely unexpected cures. Doctors and or Scientist might know the probability of a cure on the horizon or in development way before it is available to patients. So, there is usually never a sudden cure that is around the corner and will be available in the few months that a patient might have lived if they had not undergone assisted suicide. Due to this low probability of a sudden cure, there is no reason to make patients suffer undue months or weeks waiting.The patient’s misery would out way the pleasure given to the family or loved ones by the few more months of life for the patient.

The rule that it is wrong to kill an innocent human being is strongest with people who follow the religious doctrines. Without such religious ideas, it is hart to devise reasoning that has morally relevant properties that segregate patients with severe brain damage or other severely debilitating from “other” beings at a similar mental capacity. (Voluntary Euthanasia) Critics of utilitarian ethics may also make the argument that utility is flawed as a theory.That "producing the greatest good for the greatest number is fine as long as you are not hurting someone you really love in the process. Utilitarianism runs into problems when sentiment is involved” Common Criticisms of Utilitarianism) Opponents to euthanasia, believe that all life has intrinsic value and therefore cannot be terminated for any reason. Life, opponents to euthanasia argue, has absolute and intrinsic worth and therefore it cannot be terminated in any circumstance or for any reason.

However, not everyone is prepared to follow such an absolute rule.Our world society acknowledges that there can be certain times that human life is below other values. Such as in the United States we have capital punishment, because we place a hirer value on the safety of the potential victims and the achievement of justice for other victims over the value of the prisoner’s life. If a person kills another person while defending themselves or their loved ones from being attacked by that person, they will not be tried for murder.

There safety and that of their loves ones is at a higher value than the life of the attacker.When a country commits itself to waging war against another they are suggesting that the freedoms of that they are fighting for are of a higher value than the value of the soldiers that might die defending those freedoms. One of Utilitarianism ethics greatest down falls is that is places a price on human life. Immanuel Kant writes "Firstly, under the head of necessary duty to oneself: He who contemplates suicide should ask himself whether his action can be consistent with the idea of humanity as an end in itself.If he destroys himself in order to escape from painful circumstances, he uses a person merely as a mean to maintain a tolerable condition up to the end of life.

But a man is not a thing, that is to say, something which can be used merely as means, but must in all his actions be always considered as an end in himself. ” (Immanuel Kant on Suicide) Kant’s theory of ethics is deontological meaning that it is concerned with the right and wrong of acts in terms of principals or duties, rather than on the basis of the consequences of the acts” (Waller, 2008, p. 31) Kant believed that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality he called “the “Categorical Imperative” (CI). Immorality thus involves a violation of the CI and is thereby irrational.

” (Kant's Moral Philosophy) Kant sought to create framework by which one could discover which moral statements were true and which were false. There were three categorical imperatives.“1. The universal law – All moral statements should be general laws, which apply to everyone under and circumstances. There should be no occasion under which an exception is made.

 2. Treat humans as ends in themselves – Kant argues that you should never treat people as a means to some end. People should always be treated as ends in themselves. This promotes equality.

3. Act as if you live in a kingdom of ends – Kant assumed that all rational agents were able to deduce whether an argument was moral or not through reason alone and so, all rational humans should be able to conclude the same moral laws. ” (Kant and the Categorical Imperative) Kant seems to use the CI as a moral test. However it is more of an internal moral compass, that helps people “do the right moral acts” when followed.It helps each individual “test” their motives for their actions.

If the motives are tainted (we have ulterior motives) in some way with the person’s own desires, then the act is not moral. Kant states that only if our motives are pure, does it count as a moral act. He also reason’s it may never actually happen. Kant stated that he believed these moral acts were ideal and that even if we fall short, it is best to try to reach that ideal moral ground. For a deontologist, it is the intent of an act, rather than its effect, which determines morality.Kant being a deontologist believed that omissions are subject to the same moral rules as acts meaning there is no difference between acts of immorality and omissions of morality.

Omissions are only morally acceptable in Kant’s view if they are universally accepted. Therefore, if we can’t universally will something moral, than it is not moral. If you purposely kill someone, it is the same as not doing anything to save them, if it is to your benefit. You did not willfully kill them, but in Kant’s eyes it is the same as killing them because you did not try to save them.When it comes to assisted suicide, if you are helping someone die for the right reasons then it can be said to be moral.

However, if it is for personal gain then it cannot. One of the axioms in the Hippocratic Oath is where it is stated that the practitioner vows to do no harm. However, in its application it is difficult to follow to the letter of the law. If a surgeon performs open heart surgery on a patient, it does harm to the patient or if a doctor gives a patient stitches, it will hurt the patient. These actions are explained away on the basis that the end result is better than the initial harm.

So the question comes up should this axiom be carried over to euthanasia? In the end is death worse than the beginning pain, or the sustained pain that a terminally ill patient suffers through? Advocates for Euthanasia would say that death is not worse than the daily hell that these patients go though and that death is the preferential treatment to their ailment over doing nothing. That being said there are other things to consider, such as the patient’s wishes. Kant has argued that suicide is immoral. So is it immoral for a doctor to listen to their patient’s wishes for death and grant them?If so than can they be prosecuted for listening and acting on their patients wishes? However, if you can make suicide morally correct, then doctors may not be prosecuted for helping their patients in their last wishes. If patients have a living will that states if they are being kept alive by machines they wish to be removed, this relives the burden from the doctor.

But there is not a living will for assisted suicide. One could ultimately argue Kant’s ethics either for or against euthanasia. An Ethical Egoist believes that whatever act brings an individual the most good is the act that they are morally obligated to carry out.Egoists feel that whatever is going to benefit their self-interest the most is the right thing to do.

“Ethical egoism in the context of euthanasia would contend that if a person wants or does not want to end their life using euthanasia, this desire is motivated by a need for self benefit, and is therefore an ethical action. (The Ethics of Euthanasia) Egoism may also make one believe that they wish to died, based on their own self interest and personal needs, it would be in their best interest to die.They are perhaps in a great deal of pain and faced with having extremely poor quality of life. However, egoism may also go the other way and lead the person to demand that all medical advances and technologies should be used to preserve their life. Egoism like Kant’s ethics can lead one to hypothesize either way with regard to euthanasia; whatever the patient believes will bring them the most intrinsic good.

Death is something every living organism must face at one time or another. Whether it is sudden or “our time” or we are brought down by an illness.We have explored the morality and ethics of assisted suicide by investigating the Utilitarian, Kantian and Egoism ethical perspective of assisted suicide or euthanasia. In each of these ethical views one could find the pros and cons for assisted suicide. Each is what you personally define as your pursuit of happiness, pleasure or categorical imperative.

In the end I feel that it is everyone’s right to live and to die and perhaps it is our right to choose when we die as well. Whether assisted suicide is moral or ethical depends on your perspective.