Utilitarianism and Euthanasia - Essay Example

Dying Dying The philosophy of utilitarianism judges ethics centered on the effects that a given decision bring about. For a societyto behave in a utilitarian manner, decisions ought to produce good outcomes. As a result, the consequence of this decision ought to ascertain the ethical worth of the original decision or deed. In the case of euthanasia, it raises happiness and lowers pain simultaneously, automatically making it ethically worth it. A person who found out that he or she has around six months left to live after diagnosis with a terminal disease has the right to either planning for death or the remaining period of living. This is because utilitarianism gives this person a choice over this issue. The following paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of utilitarianism as an ethical theory for determining the validity of euthanasia on people’s lives (BBC, 2014). Human beings have the right to end their lives when diagnosed with terminal diseases characterized by excruciating pain because it is an inherent freedom of choice. Utilitarianism and Euthanasia Primarily, the relatives of a patient who became a monetary and emotional burden because of a terminal disease should be able to lessen their respective medical costs by euthanizing the patient (Rachels and Rachels, 2011). In the process, the family slowly eases itself of the pain of prolonging their relative’s painful life. In the case of a person diagnosed with a fatal disease, but with months to live without life support, it is crucial to arrange financial resources. This preparation organizes the person’s remaining life and spares his or her relatives of any emotional burdens. Selecting physical-aided death grants the person authority over his or her life, particularly over the last day of living. In spite of medicine and technology capable of delaying a person’s death, the financial and emotional cost of this expertise is a consequence deserving euthanasia. Doctor-assisted suicide through euthanasia is a right that everybody should enjoy, particularly when facing radically imminent death from a terminal disease (EndLink, n.d.). When numbing pain accompanies this illness, euthanasia becomes an ethical option. Euthanasia is the moral action that olds truth when it comes to weighing the action or decision that will cause the most happiness. From a utilitarian standpoint, a person who chooses to end the life of another means his or her say is not meaningful. This is a strength of the utilitarian philosophy when used in this context. When a hospital euthanizes a patient, his or her relatives suffer the painful decision of the death. At the same time, the patient suffers the greatest loss of all since he or she does not contribute to the life or death decision. In addition, nobody asked for life. The same principle can argue the freedom to choose when to die (Rachels and Rachels, 2011). The compulsory choice of life demands a compulsory choice of death. Every person leads his or her life separate life, and this grants the person the right to choose when to pass away. Only a person diagnosed with a terminal illness and under life-support can understand the degree of pain caused by the illness. This aspect of hospice care determines the amount and quality of patient care those under life support acquire. Despite the lengths taken by physicians and nurses towards ensuring proper pain management, the patient eventually passes away. A study conducted in 2013 showed that the relatives and friends of terminally ill patients requested more than half of doctors across the United States to assist in euthanasia. Under the help of a doctor, euthanasia is ethical. Life support only heightens sadness as family members and friends watch their loved one suffer unbearable pain for lengthy periods. A cost-benefit relationship arises from doctor-assisted suicide (EndLink, n.d.). When a doctor assists in euthanasia, the patient’s family and friends are saved from accruing medical costs and emotional burdens. As a result, everybody associated with the euthanized patient become free of emotional and monetary burdens, which causes happiness. This is a utilitarian effect, but it can take tremendously long for the happiness to surface. This is because the rates at which people overcome grief are different. The outcome of euthanasia is arguably unpredictable, particularly on the family’s side. In some cases, euthanasia has caused more sadness amongst the patient’s friends and family members than when under life support. When a doctor helps in this type of suicide, it becomes predictable. However, this argument remains consequential. As well, there is no reason for burdening relatives and friends with financial and emotional expenses (Rachels and Rachels, 2011). A nurse from Durham VA hospital confessed that family members, friends, or health insurance companies of those on life support pay an average of up to $3,000 daily. Euthanizing such a patient is a utilitarian practice with goof consequences. Saving family members and friends of emotional burdens is one of the few good things that come out of euthanasia. In addition, monetary costs incurred to the same parties alleviate stresses that could be avoided through euthanasia. Euthanasia also allows the patient to pass away on his or her own terms. Terms can include the place the patient desires to be euthanized or the doctors and people the patient wants around during the euthanasia. Such terms allow for a peaceful process of euthanasia that seemingly dignifies it from a utilitarian point of view. The ethical nature of the outcome of doctor-assisted suicide is also arguable. The deliberate murder of a human being is an argument that can occasionally overweigh the alleviation of sadness by friends and relatives (BBC, 2014). As a result, determining whether doctor-assisted suicide produces good or bad consequences is still under criticism. From a utilitarian standpoint, doctor-assisted suicide does not overlook the significance of duty. The terminally ill person may be unable to express a proper farewell or compose a will. As a result, a Kantian attitude can argue this situation differently. Doctor-assisted suicide can give birth to a new acceptable doctrine of behavioral murder in place of harsh sentences like capital punishment. Equally, every human being entitled to an arranged last moment of life inherently (Rachels and Rachels, 2011). Similar to one’s whole life, any individual diagnosed with a terminal condition should take control of their last days alive by deciding if, when, and how they ought to be euthanized. Evidently, it is not for ethical relatives and doctors to make such concrete decisions for patients (EndLink, n.d.). As a result, it is not utilitarian when other people decide on the death of other people, irrespective of their relationships. Making this decision contributes to the peace such a patient requires and desires in such a pressurizing time of life. The peace the patient gets from determining the conditions of his or her euthanasia is a good consequence. This reflects the basis of utilitarianism on euthanasia. However, since the decision affects the patient’s relatives and friends, consultation would be commendable but not mandatory. Conclusion Irrespective of the numerous medicine and technologies that extend one’s life, the decision of euthanasia should rest on the patient’s life. The life of an adult involves independent decision-making (BBC, 2014). A patient with a fatal condition should enjoy this freedom as well. A patient with enough time to work or even travel with a terminal illness and a patient under life support should share similar freedoms pertaining to their imminent deaths. Weighing relatives and friends with emotional and monetary losses is not ethical or necessary. Lastly, saying farewell to loved ones can only occur while in a conscious state. As a result, taking advantage of the time one has before the body gives in to the illness is crucial. Farewells reinstate peace and calm in friends and relatives, especially when they see the patient in excruciating pain while under life support. References BBC. (2014). Anti-euthanasia Arguments. BBC. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml#h10 on 14 July 2014. EndLink. (n.d.). Important Facts About Physician Assisted Suicide. Endlink. Lurie. Retrieved from http://www.endoflife.northwestern.edu/physician_assisted_suicide_debate/facts.pdf on 14 July 2014. Rachels, J. and Rachels, S. (2011). The Right Thing to Do: Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Humanities. Read More