Course Project Milestone – Euthanasia

Course Project Milestone – Euthanasia

Euthanasia, or assisted suicide, which involves the intentional termination of a person’s life to relieve suffering, particularly for those who are hopelessly injured or sick, is an extremely controversial ethical issue. There are different kinds of euthanasia, including passive euthanasia, whereby a doctor purposely gives a patient a lethal dose, usually a sedative. In addition, passive euthanasia involves withholding treatments that are life-sustaining to a patient, which leads to their death quickly. Further, there is voluntary euthanasia, whereby a patient makes a conscious decision to end their own life, and lastly, involuntary euthanasia, whereby someone with authority makes this decision for a patient. The ethical debate on euthanasia usually centers on the tension between the societal implications of allowing such actions and a person’s right to die.

Those in favor of euthanasia argue that people have the right to make decisions on their own lives and bodies, and that includes even the decision to end their lives, especially when they are hopelessly suffering (Fontalis et al., 2018). Euthanasia is seen as a way to make the process of ending life more humane compared to committing suicide. In addition, this argument also emphasizes personal autonomy. The second argument for euthanasia is based on being compassionate and that when it comes to a person being in unrelievable pain, the humane thing to do for them is to be compassionate and alleviate their suffering.

On the other hand, the first argument in opposition to euthanasia states argues that life should never be violated, and euthanasia undermines this intrinsic value of human life. According to this argument, life must be preserved irrespective of circumstances, and euthanasia contradicts society’s moral and ethical duty to protect life. Another argument against euthanasia is that allowing it opens up chances of abuse, particularly to groups like the disabled or older people. According to this argument, no clear guidelines are established around it, leaving a lot of room for mistakes or manipulation. Legalizing euthanasia could lead to non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia and a devaluation of certain groups of people, such as older people or people with disabilities.

An Ethical Egoist Perspective

In regards to euthanasia, an ethical egoist, according to Rachels and Rachels (2019), would support assisted suicide, supposing the practice aligns with their own self-interest, especially if they are the person suffering from a terminal illness. An ethical egoist would argue that in order to serve their personal best interest, they would aim to alleviate their suffering, which means that they would choose euthanasia. Notably, I would argue that there is a conflict between loyalty to self and community when it comes to euthanasia, as an individual’s desire for euthanasia may clash with societal norms or the interests of their community or family. Personally, I would advocate that the best course of action in this case is to leave the decision to the patient or the individual in pain. In addition, I would support them undergoing euthanasia because it is not about what I feel about the action but the condition that that person is in. I believe that compassion is the best way to approach this matter and support those who choose it.

A Social Contract Ethicist

According to the beliefs of social contract ethicists, moral and ethical norms are founded on contracts or, rather, agreements within a society in a way that ensures mutual benefit and social order (D’Olimpio, 2019). In regards to euthanasia, a social contract ethicist would most likely take an opposing stance and argue the action undermines social trust, and since both suicide and murder are condemned by society, the ethicist would also argue that euthanasia demoralizes society’s foundational agreement to protect life. Further, they might contend that allowing euthanasia could erode the societal commitment to care for vulnerable individuals, thus destabilizing social cohesion. Evaluating whether euthanasia causes a collision between personal and national obligations, a social contract ethicist’s perspective would maintain the strict regulations against euthanasia to preserve social trust and ethical consistency.

Relevant Professional Code of Ethics

One professional code of ethics in regard to euthanasia is found in the American Medical Association (AMA) Code of Medical Ethics. Here, the code of ethics contains guidance on end-of-life care and emphasizes the role of a physician in alleviating suffering while respecting patient autonomy. Nevertheless, the code also underscores the significance of life preservation and, by and large, opposes the idea of euthanasia (Barsness et al., 2020). For a physician, there could be a conflict between professional and familial duties. A physician has the duty and swore an oath to follow ethical procedures that prioritize life preservation, but they may also have personal or familial empathy towards a suffering loved one who desires euthanasia. This personal empathy is in direct conflict with the AMA Code, which states that physicians should seek to provide palliative care and support rather than actively participate in ending life.

Conclusion

Balancing the ethical considerations of euthanasia involves addressing profound questions of autonomy, suffering, and societal values. From an ethical egoist perspective, personal autonomy and self-interest might justify euthanasia, while social contract ethicists would prioritize societal stability and the protection of life. Professional codes of ethics for doctors and nurses generally oppose euthanasia, emphasizing the duty to preserve life and provide compassionate care through other means. Therefore, the best course of action would involve stringent regulations, comprehensive palliative care options, and ongoing ethical discourse to navigate this complex issue.

References

Barsness, J. G., Regnier, C. R., Hook, C. C., & Mueller, P. S. (2020). US medical and surgical society position statements on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: A review. BMC Medical Ethics, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00556-5

D’Olimpio, L. (2019). Moral education within the social contract: Whose contract is it anyway? Journal of Moral Education, 48(4), 515–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2019.1580565

Fontalis, A., Prousali, E., & Kulkarni, K. (2018). Euthanasia and assisted dying: What is the current position and what are the key arguments informing the debate? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 111(11), 407–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076818803452

Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.). McGraw Hill Education.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Instructions
This assignment is the first step in a three-part project. You only need to focus on part one at this point. Each step will build on earlier steps. However, it is not a matter of providing a rough draft of all or even part of the entire project here in week three. That is, further steps might require completely new and original text. At the same time, completing each step will aid you in completing a future step or future steps. And, you should use the same topic in all steps.

Course Project Milestone – Euthanasia

First, select a topic of moral controversy, debate, disagreement, and dispute, Examples of such topics are euthanasia, the death penalty, abortion, cloning, etc. You can pick any such topic. It need not be listed here.

Next, detail the positions of each side of the ethical debate. Note at least two moral reasons each side presents to show their view on the topic is correct.

Now, we want to evaluate these positions using the moral theories we studied this week:

What would an Ethical Egoist say about this topic? What side would the Ethical Egoist take? What would the Ethical Egoist say to justify their moral position? Is there a conflict between loyalty to self and to community relevant to your topic? If so, how so? Note what you feel is the best course of action.
What would a Social Contract Ethicist say about this topic? What side would the Social Contract Ethicist take? What would the Social Contract Ethicist say to justify their moral position? Does your topic involve a collision between personal obligations and national ones? If so, how so? Note what you feel is the best course of action.
Finally, reference and discuss any professional code of ethics relevant to your topic such as the AMA code for doctors, the ANA code for nurses, or any other pertinent professional code. State whether and how your chosen topic involves any conflicts between professional and familial duties.