Download Euthanasia: A Means to An EndPHI103: Informal LogicMany peop and more Lecture notes Accounting in PDF only on Docsity! Euthanasia: A Means to An End 1 Euthanasia: A Means to An End PHI103: Informal Logic Many people may argue that the intentional cause of death is immoral and/or unethical; however, incertain cases, active voluntary euthanasia is moral and should be a given rightActive voluntaryeuthanasia is the practice of intentionally administering medications to cause a patient’s death, atthe patient’s request, with full, informed consent (Onwuteaka, 1997). This paper will Euthanasia: A Means to An End 2 also explore the query of ethics and morality of physician assisted suicide, or euthanasia. This will examine strong arguments that euthanasia is or is not ethical and/or moral. Euthanasia: A Means to An End Argumentin Favor ofEuthanasia Premise 1: Consequentialism is the ethical theory which judges the rightness or wrongness of an act on the basis of its consequences, rather than on the basis of what principle the act falls under (Waller, 2011). Premise 2: The morality of an action is determined by its consequences(2011). Premise 3:Whatever action leads to happiness or prevents suffering is moral (2011). Premise 4: Whatever action leads to suffering or prevents happiness is immoral (2011). Conclusion: Euthanasia is ethical and moral. Support for the Argument in Favor of Euthanasia The premises of the argument are supported by decade’s worth of analysis of utilitarianism and consequentialism, specifically, Dr. Bruce N. Waller, who is Chair of the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Youngstown State University, and his theories on ethics.Consequentialism is the view that normative properties depend solely on consequences. Utilitarian ethics is a consequentialist moral theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an act in terms of its consequences, specifically, whether it produces the greatest balance of pleasure over suffering for everyone involved (Waller, 2011).Regardless of whether an act is ethically moral or immoral depends completely on its results. John Stuart Mill claims that the motive of an action has nothing to do with the morality of the action, rather, the majority of good actions are intended not for the benefit of the whole world, but for that of individuals, of Euthanasia: A Means to An End 5 against euthanasia argument. With the exception of it’s third premise, the argument is not favorable of the most important subject matter, the whole point of the concept of physician assisted suicide, the sufferer. According to utilitarian ethics, the multiplication of happiness is the object of virtue. Therefore, active voluntary euthanasia is justifiable when the action leads to the happiness of the individual and society, in the case of Brittany Maynard and other suffering individuals, because if it wasn’t for the choice of ending their suffering being available, the inflicted individual’s suffering would be extremely prolonged. With the extended suffering and prevention of happiness, the denial of active voluntary euthanasia is immoral. The argument against is indeed in general favor of those surrounding the sufferer, short term and long term. This is stated with it’s first, second, and fourth premise. However, Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle claims that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness and wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Mill, 1863). Therefore, Mill would agree with the act if active voluntary euthanasia because it leads to the greatest happiness of the patient and their loved ones. According to the textbook: Whatever one’s feelings about euthanasia, the issue is not settled by simply applying the general rule that it is wrong to kill a human being. To use that rule seems to oversimplify the issue in a way that misses the subtleties of this specific case. An argument that properly addresses the issue will appeal to a moral principle that makes sense when applied to the specific issues that pertain to the case of euthanasia itself (Hardy et al., 2015) Conclusion Euthanasia: A Means to An End 6 While both sides do present strong arguments, active voluntary euthanasia is a personal choice that, if the right criteria are present, should be respected. End-stage diseases are painful, depressing, humiliating, and strip the person of their dignity. If someone who is suffering wants to make the choice to avoid all of that, including avoiding the emotional and financial toll it would put on their loved ones, they should be allowed to end their lives on their own terms. According to the principles of utilitarianism, which state that the morally best actions are the ones that produce the most overall happiness through their consequences, active voluntary euthanasia is morally just. Dignity and mercy are priceless. The value of life comes from enjoying it and forcing people to live life just to make them suffer is cruel and immoral. References: Hardy, J., Foster, C., & Zúñiga y Postigo, G. (2015). With good reason: A guide to critical thinking. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/ Euthanasia: A Means to An End 7 Maynard, B. (2014, November 3). My Right to Death With Dignity at 29. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/opinion/maynard-assisted-suicide-cancerdignity/ index.html Mill, J. S. (1863). UTILITARIANISM. Retrieved fromhttps://www.utilitarianism.com/mill2.htm Onwuteaka, B. D., Muller, M. T., van der Wal, G., van Eijk, J. T., & Ribbe, M. W. (1997,October). Active voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide? Retrieved fromhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9329482 Sulmasy, D., Travaline, J., Mitchell, L., & Ely, E. (2016, August). Non-faith-based arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. Retrieved July 03, 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102187/ Waller, B. N. (2011). Consider ethics: Theory, readings, and contemporary issues (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson. 9780205017737
