Contemporary Moral Issue – Euthanasia
Introduction
Euthanasia is defined as the intentional killing by a person’s omission or act whose life is no longer considered worth living. The definition can be approached from a broad viewpoint, including all decisions anticipated to bring about or speed up the death of an individual by omission or acting to reduce or prevent that person’s misery, whether on the person’s request or not. Euthanasia is classified into non-voluntary, voluntary, involuntary, active, and passive euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is done with a patient’s permission. Non-voluntary euthanasia is done where the patient cannot give permission. The most common type of non-voluntary euthanasia is child euthanasia, which is prohibited by law across the world but not criminalized under specific conditions in countries like the Netherlands. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted against a patient’s will. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, includes withholding common medication, such as antibiotics needed to continue life, while active euthanasia includes the use of lethal forces and substances, such as using lethal injection to end a life. Indirect and passive euthanasia are generally accepted in the legal, medical, and ethical fields and are less contentious. Although involuntary euthanasia is considered unacceptable by many people, it is currently not a major part of the debate and proposals on euthanasia. It is important to review euthanasia from ethical and moral perspectives to contribute to the debate, including justifications and arguments against it. While the ethical view is multifaceted and considers the fundamental human right to life, the moral view posits that a patient cannot require that their healthcare provider conduct euthanasia, but if the healthcare provider and patient are in agreement that euthanasia is the best measure to take, nobody should interfere with the voluntary agreement.
Summary of Selected Moral Theories
Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism that posits that an act’s moral wrongness or rightness relies on the consequences it yields (Timmermann, 2014). It adds that the inactions and actions yielding negative results that offset the positive ones will be viewed as morally unacceptable, while the inactions and actions whose positive results outweigh the negative results will be viewed as morally acceptable. Based on utilitarianism, inaction and actions benefitting a few people and harming many people are considered morally unacceptable, and those that harm fewer people and benefit more people are considered morally correct (Hinman, 2018). The main concern for utilitarianism is how to enhance net utility (Timmermann, 2014). The moral theory is grounded on the utility principle that states that the morally acceptable action is the one that results in the most good while the morally unacceptable one is the one that results in reducing maximum good.
Natural Law theory posits that there are universally evident and binding ends that apply to everyone. It adds that ends can be met by applying reason and observing nature. The theory also posits that exterior and interior acts are of equal importance and must be good to create a positive consequence (Shafer-Landau,2021). The theory is founded on human nature, divine command, and nature’s order. The fundamental aspect of the theory is that human beings can distinguish the principles of right action that direct us to dictate our wills toward fundamental human fulfillment through rational reflection (Shafer-Landau,2021). It includes a theory of value, including a practical account of human well-being in its different dimensions. It also considers virtues understood as habits of character and the mind that reliably dispose an individual to act and choose based on moral norms that make up a vital aspect of human prosperity.
Application of The Utilitarianism and Natural Law Theories in Euthanasia
In a healthcare setting, the utilitarian theory would provide that patient benefits should be maximized while minimizing risks and costs wherever there is a choice between different but equally efficient treatment methods. Therefore, based on the utilitarianism approach, the decision to end a patient’s life should consider the patient and other individuals who the decision may impact. It posits that even though euthanasia would favor a patient’s interest, it would be unacceptable due to the destructive impact on the patient’s family (Kimuyu, 2018). However, if the family supports the patient’s decision to end their life, the utilitarianism theory would recommend euthanasia. Act utilitarianism posits that people should always act to promote good for the most people, which is why someone applying act utilitarianism would support taking away a patient’s life through euthanasia if the patient’s death eliminates suffering for the family and relatives.
According to Paterson (2012), the Natural Law approach assumes that human life is valuable, and prohibiting euthanasia creates a foundation for all social interactions. Therefore, an individual using the approach may disagree with euthanasia because if the intention is good, such as relieving pain and ending suffering, the act of helping someone end their life passively or actively is wrong (Paterson, 2012). The Natural Law theory may, however, accept euthanasia in some instances. For instance, it may accept passive euthanasia by applying the Doctrine of Double Effect because it does not allow a bad act even though it leads to good results. The individual may argue that helping someone ill themselves is a destructive act that leads to good results, such as the person being relieved of their suffering, hence making it wrong based on the doctrine.
Utilitarianism as The Best Response to Euthanasia
The Natural Law theory focuses on primary precepts and supporting the main components of worshipping God, reproducing, living in an ordered society, learning, and defending the innocent. Euthanasia is against three of these precepts, thus making it a forbidden act when considering Natural Law. In a society where there is more emphasis on the quality of life and the assumption that any practice taking away a human life is wrong, Natural Law becomes outdated. Natural Law also prohibits euthanasia based on apparent and real goods. Taking away a person’s life passively is an apparent good due to the fact that it does not achieve long-term contentment because the person would be dead. However, this perspective can be criticized because an individual’s suffering would be cut short, thus reducing suffering. Natural Law also contradicts itself because although the main precepts of Natural Law prohibit euthanasia because it involves actively killing a person, the Doctrine of Double Effect permits it. If a doctor continues to prescribe a patient more medication, resulting in an overdose, the doctor is not blamed for the patient’s death due to the Doctrine of Double Effect. The catholic church established the Doctrine to respond to situation ethics, thus allowing euthanasia to a specific level while upholding religious aspects (Jordan, 2020). These weaknesses limit the effectiveness of the Natural Law theory in reviewing euthanasia as a moral issue.
The utilitarianism theory offers the best response to euthanasia because it raises the right questions about the appropriateness of euthanasia. For instance, when looking at euthanasia from a legal perspective, the utilitarianism theory considers whether legalizing it would imply relief for patients or that patients will be anxious about being victimized in the healthcare environment. It also asks whether people should be anxious that healthcare providers and their relatives will persuade them to consider an offer they cannot decline to save money when they become vulnerable and sick. When looking at euthanasia from a moral approach, the utilitarianism theory posits that it would be morally wrong to prohibit patients from taking their own life or prohibit healthcare providers from helping them. It adds that it would be morally wrong to prohibit doctors from intentionally and actively taking their patients’ lives even after a patient’s request. The theory considers an ethical decision as one that is translated to measure pleasure or happiness. Therefore, moral decisions should be founded on the benefits they can provide to society. Therefore, an individual can see a clear distinction between the morality of euthanasia and its legality, thus judging the action of helping a patient end their life based on the measure of pleasure and happiness and how it affects those around the patient.
References
Hinman, L. M. (2018). Contemporary moral issues: diversity and consensus. Routledge.
Jordan, J. (2020). The Doctrine of double effect and affirmative action. The Doctrine of Double Effect, 234-238. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv19m64sz.16
Kimuyu, P. (2018). Ethics of physician assisted suicide. GRIN Verlag.
Paterson, M. C. (2012). Assisted suicide and euthanasia: A natural law ethics approach. Ashgate Publishing.
SHAFER-LANDAU, R. (2021). Living ethics: An introduction with readings. Oxford University Press, USA.
Timmermann, J. (2014). Kantian ethics and utilitarianism. The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism, 239-257. https://doi.org/10.1017/cco9781139096737.013
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Contemporary Moral Issue – Euthanasia
Construct a good philosophical essay that includes all the sections outlined below:
1. Section 1: Identify in your title and on the title/cover page the contemporary moral issue you will examine. (Total possible points for this item: 10 pts.)
2. Section 2: Offer a SUMMARY of the major issues, concepts, and distinctions relevant to the contemporary moral issue you have selected. (Suggestion: You may want to pattern this section of your paper after the “Introduction to the Moral Issues” section that Hinman includes at the beginning of each chapter in his book.) [The approximate length of this section should be about 1 page.] (Total possible points for this item: 25 pts.)
3. Section 3: Summary of Selected Moral Theories [MINIMUN length for this section is 1 page] Shafer-Landau outlines eight major moral theories in chapters 5-18 of his book. SELECT TWO of the following moral theories – Divine Command Ethics, Natural Law, Ethical Egoism, Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, Social Contract Ethics, Feminist Ethics, and Virtue – and offer a thorough summary account of each theory (e.g., primary advocate/s of the theory; a concise statement of what the theory affirms or states regarding moral standards and moral judgments; etc.). (Total possible points for this item: 30 pts.)
4. Section 4: Application of selected moral theories to the moral issue you selected [MINIMUN length for this section is 1 page] The goal for this section is to provide an analysis of how each theory would respond to the selected moral issue and what resolution each theory would offer to that moral issue. (Total possible points for this item: 35 pts.)
5. Section 5: Select the theory that offers the best response to the moral issue selected and defend/argue for your position [MINIMUN length for this section is 1 ½ pages] The goal for this section is to offer a well-written argument that provides good reasons for your opinion that one theory is superior to the other theory in resolving and/or responding to the selected moral issue. (Total possible points for this item: 40 pts.)
The grammar and style of your essay will also be evaluated and will contribute to your total score on the assignment. (Total possible points for this item: 10 pts.)
Resources: Your primary resources should be those used in this course: Hinman’s book, Shafer-Landau’s book, and the Supplemental Resources provided on the course site. You may, however, consult other sources if you so choose.
All sources used in the paper must be correctly documented in a bibliography included at the end of the paper. Where material borrowed from an outside source is used in your paper, either in summary form or as a direct quotation, correct citation information properly formatted must be provided.