End of Life: Ethics and Moral Reasoning - Essay Example

End of Life Newheart N. Rechirei Ethics and Moral Reasoning Number As the ethical issues facing the contemporary society are augmenting, it is getting imperative for the people to resort to the apt ethical theories and systems that facilitate a just and humane solution to such ethical dilemmas. The options and avenues open to the patients facing an end of life scenario, either because of being terminally ill or because of a lack or absence of the pragmatic medical cures and treatments that may ameliorate their suffering, is one such salient ethical issue being faced by the human civilization (Fora Tv, 2010). There is a growing public opinion supported by many ethical theorists and medical experts that the patients in an end of life situation, who have to bear with excruciating and incurable physical and mental pain and agony on a daily and prolonged basis, without having the hope of any viable or imminent medical cure or treatment, should have the right to legally end their life with apt assistance from the appropriate physicians and doctors (Fora Tv, 2010). In the light of the existent ethical theories, the approach of the utilitarian theory towards the end of life dilemma is most valid as it takes into consideration the well being and happiness of the maximum number of stakeholders usually associated with such decisions. As per the deontological approach, it is ethical to accord a way out to an end of life patient in the form of some option like a physician assisted suicide, because an act that relieves a living being of immense and incurable mental and physical suffering and pain inherently stands to be right, irrespective of the plausible consequences of such act or the views and opinions of the stakeholders related to such an act (Fora Tv, 2010). In consonance with Kant’s theory of categorical imperative, the act of relieving an end of life patient of one’s interminable and incurable pain stands to be right and just under all circumstances. There is no denying the fact that the deontological approach towards end of life patients is strong in the sense that instead of basing its dependence on individual opinions and views, it relies for strength and sustenance on the inherent rightness and justness of an action. Thereby deontological approach thrives over a utilitarian and virtue ethics perspective in the sense that it is more poised to facilitate a solution that has a universal validity and appeal. However, one cannot ignore the lacunas inherent in the deontological approach towards the issue under consideration. A deontological view stands weak before a utilitarian approach because it is committed to a hypothetical idea of rightness and does not take into consideration the eventual happiness of all the stakeholders associated with such scenarios as the end of life patients, their family members and the physicians and medical personnel treating them (West Virginia Public Broadcasting, 2010). The other weakness in the deontological solution that makes it weak before a virtue ethics perspective is that it claims to facilitate a universal answer, without taking into consideration the relative situation and individual circumstances of each specific end of life patient (relievesuffering, 2012). When it comes to the recourse available to the end of life patients in the form of the physician assisted suicide, the views of the utilitarian ethics happen to be most valid because they extend due credence to the onus of accruing maximum happiness to the maximal stakeholders associated with such scenarios by allowing the end of life patients the right to procure a physician assisted suicide, thereby relieving them of incurable and prolonged pain, while diluting the financial burden and daily anxiety and anguish born by their family members and the medical personnel treating them (relievesuffering, 2012). Thereby, the solution facilitated by the utilitarian ethics and moreover the ethical catechism on which the utilitarian approach basis this solution is more likely to be acceptable to most of the stakeholders. The utilitarian approach towards the end of life patients is the one that is more likely to bring happiness and relief from pain to a greater number of people associated with such situations (relievesuffering, 2012). The other good thing is that the utilitarian view does score over the deontological view in the sense that it does not accrue credence from a sense of rightness and justice that is esoteric and ambiguous in its scope and is open to diverse interpretations, but rather pursues a pragmatic line by taking into consideration the happiness of most of the stakeholders. Even a lay person could understand the fact that a decision that leads to the relieving of the unhappiness and suffering of the maximum number of people associated with an end of life patient, and the patient herself does sound to be more valid and right (West Virginia Public Broadcasting, 2010). The other thing that is good about the utilitarian perspective regarding the end of life patients is that it does incorporate within its scope the doubts raised by the virtue ethics, and does allow for the consideration of the individual condition and opinion of each specific end of life patient and the family members and doctors associated with one. However, the weakness inherent in the utilitarian approach is that it makes the physicians violate the Hippocratic Oath taken by them and it could lead to an eventual dilution of the trust of the terminally ill patients in the medical science. The virtue ethics pursue a person based rather than an action based view of the end of life care by holding that it is virtuous to allow for a physician assisted suicide to an end of life patient who is suffering from a disease that is not only incurable, but also causes immense, unending and prolonged emotional and physical suffering, because any virtuous person will take the same decision under such circumstances. The virtue ethics driven opinion does has its strengths in the sense that it takes recourse to the inviolable human virtues like kindness, empathy and compassion that is innate to any virtuous person (Kass, 1989). However, the problem with virtue ethics based argument is that just like the deontological approach it is open to diverse interpretations. For instance one virtuous person may say that it is kind and compassionate to allow an end of life patient take recourse to a physician assisted suicide as this will end one’s suffering. There may be other virtuous person who may believe that it is unkind to allow a physician assisted suicide to an end of life patient because it violates one’s human dignity and the sanctity of the human life. Thereby, virtue ethics take the final decision away from the practical concerns of the end of life patients, their family members and doctors, and place it in the hands of some imaginary virtuous person (Kass, 1989). The irony is that if one places the interpretation of virtue in such issues to the views of a virtuous person, different virtuous persons may evince different opinions, without incurring any doubt on their innate virtuousness and integrity. Thereby, it will get utterly difficult to decide as to which virtuous person is right, thereby depriving the concerned end of life patient the recourse to a relieving and dignified exit. Thereby, in the light of the above analysis, it would be right to say that the utilitarian approach extends the most satisfactory answer as to why the end of life patients should have the right to avail recourses like a physician assisted suicide because it takes into consideration the overall happiness of most of the people associated with such scenarios, are they the patients, their family members or their physicians. Hence, a decision taken in the light of the utilitarian ethics in such situations is least unlikely to be wrong, not because it will not violate the arguments extended by most of the ethical theories, but because it will extend maximum practical happiness to most of the people associated with such a decision (relievesuffering, 2012). It is a fact that in case of an end of life patient suffering from terminal cancer or advanced stages of AIDS or any such incurable disease, one has to contend with immense physical and psychological pain on a daily basis. Moreover, the family members of such a patient has to bear with twin issues, the mounting financial costs and the anguish of seeing a loved one in pain that will never come to an end (Fora Tv, 2010). The physicians in such situations if justify the assisted suicide for a patient, their only motivation is to relieve their patient of the suffering that has no end. Thereby, as per the utilitarian view, a physician assisted suicide in such situations brings happiness to all the people involved and hence is right, virtuous and practical. Hence, conclusively speaking the solution and the line of argument facilitated by the utilitarian ethics in the case of end of life patients is most satisfactory as compared to the deontological and virtue ethics arguments because it is based on the eventual happiness of most of the people associated with an end of life patient and the patient herself, and happiness is an entity that is real, could be felt and more or less quantifiable in any situation. References Fora Tv. (2020, April 14). End-of-Life Care: Weighing Ethics and Rationing Resources [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiTp1w48P3E Kass, L.R. (1989). Neither for Lobe nor Money: Why Doctors must not Kill. Public Interest, 94, 24-46. Retrieved from the ProQuest database. relievesuffering. (2012, February 8). Right to Die, Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia Part 1 5 [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTLN6ea_SR0 West Virginia Public Broadcasting. (2010, December 28). The Last Chapter- End of Life Decisions [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jKUZ8lS9b4 Read More