This paper will demonstrate whether it should be ethical or not to help a terminally ill and suffering patient to commit suicide. More specifically, it will address the case of euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined as the act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition. The controversy that surrounds euthanasia has made it a serious ethical question that has to be addressed in a respectful manner. There are two different types of euthanasia; active and passive. Active euthanasia occurs when the medical professionals deliberately do something that causes the patient to die. On the other hand, passive euthanasia occurs when the patient dies because the medical professionals either do not do something necessary to keep the patient alive, or when they stop doing something that is keeping the patient alive. First, this paper will explore act-utilitarianism, a subclass of consequentialism, and Kant’s theory, a deontological subclass. Both theories will be explained and then applied to the ethical question, justified by their coherency.
Act-Utilitarianism, as defended by Jeremy Bentham, is a subclass of consequentialism which focuses on impartialness; meaning, it considers all individuals affected by an action. Act-Utilitarianism tries to produce actions with the greatest overall utility; meaning an act is only ethical if it brings about the best consequence for everyone concerned. Act-Utilitarianists define utility as producing the most pleasure or happiness, and disutility as producing the least pleasure or happiness. Act-utilitarianism also makes no distinction between pleasure and happiness which will allow us to more easily quantify and assess the ethical question being asked. The only important question is whether euthanasia creates more happiness (or less suffering) than preventing it. However, An act utilitarian considers euthanasia on a case-by-case basis.
Four subdivisions were extrapolated from act-utilitarianism which allows us to better quantify a given situation. The Scope determines how many individuals will be affected. The Duration determines how long the effect lasts. The Intensity determines the severity of the act. And finally, the Probability accounts for the off chance that a new consequence may arise in the future. Once confronted with an ethical question, an act-utilitarianism would take into account everyone affected and all possible choices of action. A chart is used to associate all four subdivisions with each of the persons affected in order quantify the degree of each person’s happiness, relative to alternate choices of action. Therefore, according to act-utilitarianism, only after associating all four subdivisions with each persons affected, and after carefully calculated the amount of happiness, could a morally ethical decision be made in a specific case. However, no unlike Rule-Utilitarianism, no rule can be made, and each case should be treated independently.
Kant’s Theory, as defended by Immanuel Kant, is a subclass of Deontology which focuses on implicit moral duties. The word “Deontology” is derived from the Greek word ‘deon’, meaning obligation or duty. Deontology, contrary to consequentialism distinguishes itself by its principle based ethics. It states that an act is only ethical if it maintains good ethical principles. According to Kant, pleasure, happiness and other consequentialist utilities have no value. He believed that if an action is intrinsically good, it should always increase goodness in any situation. Considering this, Kant formulated an encompassing ethical principle from which other principles stem; he named it the “Good Will’. The Good Will, Kant states, is about doing what you are morally obliged to do, whether you like it or not. He holds that actions should only be motivated by moral duty, not by emotions or other influences. In order to act accordingly, Kant set a list of three principles that one must always follow to the letter, regardless of the situation. These unexceptional principles are also known as categorical imperatives. There are two forms of categorical imperative. The first one is that a person should only do what they can accept or will that everyone do. It is universal, applies to all persons and is similar to willing it as a law. When setting a principle for ourselves, a person should decide whether it is proper or improper one. To do so, one must ask himself whether he could will that sort of thing to all. What would happen if everyone lived according to that principle? Only then could he decide whether it was a right principle. If I could will it as universal practice, then we know that it is a morally permissible action. The second form is that we must not use other people. As persons, although we are sometimes influenced, we chose our own life and we have our own reasoning to do so. This second form asks of us to consider what constitutes proper treatment of persons. It tells us to treat others as ends rather than merely as means. It is suitable to use things to our need; however it is not suitable to use people as if they were things at our disposal and without there consent.
Using these ethical principles, we can answer the question of whether or not it is ethical to help a terminally ill patient commit suicide. Since, according to Kant, happiness has no intrinsic value, the patient’s happiness is disregarded. We now have to ask ourselves whether or not it is rational to help the patient commit suicide. Firstly, the maxim in this ethical question would be the act of killing. If killing was universalized, everyone would be dead. The concept of killing would then not exist. Clearly, killing seems irrational. As a result, it would be inconsistent with the first principle. Furthermore, helping the patient commit suicide would show a lack of respect towards his or her intrinsic value as a human. As a result, the doctor would be using the patient means only, going against Kant’s second principle. Therefore, it is clear that according to Kant’s Deontology, it would be immoral to help the patient commit suicide, no matter what the circumstance.
I am pro consequentialist because I agree that an action should be based on what brings about the most overall utility. However, I also believe that when an action is composed of two or more parts, it is considered two separate actions. Actively doing something is considered an action. Passively doing something is not considered an action unless it’s not accompanied by an act. For example, I cannot take the organs of one person in order to save three people because although it would bring about an overall greater utility, it is composed of two acts: taking the organs and giving it to the three. Although one act is moral, the other is not, which is inconsistent with consequentialism. If I was to kill a terrorist, and as a result many were saved, this action is composed of one active and many passive acts. If however, I were to passively let a terrorist kill people, this would be considered an act of being passive. Therefore an action can only have one active part, but can bring about many passive parts. Upon following, one can see how one single act will for the most part, never go against human rights or the justice system; one of the main criticisms of act-utilitarianism. Following this postulate, it would be my duty to help the suffering patient learn how to cope with the pain, rather than decide whether it is more ethical or not to help him commit suicide. Utility can still be acquired while in pain and if you define utility as producing the most overall happiness, which I personally support, you can train the patient to tolerate pain, which can bring about an overall greater happiness. Therefore it would be immoral to help him commit suicide just as it would be immoral to do nothing.
While both act-utilitarianism and Kant’s theory agree in this case that it would be unethical to help the patient commit suicide, both approaches have major flaws which invalidate them to a certain degree. My theory takes the consequentialist approach agreeing with the use of consequences as a source of determining whether an action is ethical or not. Therefore, it should be unethical to help a terminally ill and suffering patient commit suicide because it would bring about an overall greater disutility as demonstrated through the use of the act-utilitarianist chart. However, my theory also solves many issues that arise when practicing consequentialism, such as the human rights and the justice system issue somewhat while also lowering the chance of calculation errors occurring, making the system more efficient.