Euthanasia a Moral Dilemma
University of the People
Author Note
This paper is being submitted on March 16, for
PHIL 1404: Ethics and Social Responsibility
Unit 7 – Bioethics and Medical Ethics Euthanasia is the humane and compassionate act of ending a person’s life because their immediate physical circumstance is so bad that death would be a blessing. This discussion is about voluntary euthanasia, where a terminally ill person requests assistance in dying and the moral dilemma it holds ("Voluntary Euthanasia (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)," 2014) A moral dilemma occurs where there are mutually exclusive moral actions to take in a given situation ("Moral Dilemmas (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)," 2002). Voluntary …show more content…
Duty theories base morality on specific principles of obligations or duties to humanity and focus on the intent rather than the consequence. They are also referred to as non-consequential theories. As described in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP), we can generalize duty-based theories as “Duty to God, Duty to Self, and Duty to Others” (Fieser, n.d.). Euthanasia is controversial, among deontological ethicists. Immanuel Kant was a 18th century deontological ethicist who believed we should never treat people as a means to an end and therefore euthanasia would be wrong because it would be treating ones life as a means to end of pain and suffering ("Moral Dilemmas (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)," 2002). Kant also believed there was no dilemma because there is a hierarchy of duties and therefore the duty that served the highest purpose ought to …show more content…
Non-consequential ethics is about intent and regardless of intentions; the consequence of euthanasia is both personal and permanent. Therefore, consequence trumps intent. Virtue ethics focuses on moral character and habitual behavior; therefore, it would not be an appropriate yardstick. Virtue ethics is a great moral compass to use to navigate through life’s obstacles, however, euthanasia is a specific, extremely personal act, and each case ought to be considered individually. In the end, the virtue ethics of the infamous Dr Kevorkian was disruptive to the discussion of euthanasia. The media circus around Dr Death leaves one to wonder his ethics and morals altogether. Therefore, when contemplating euthanasia, consequentialism is the best theory to apply. The situation will be unique for every patient, perhaps not the fact they are terminal, but their rights as individuals to choose how they will die is unique and personal. The choice to become terminally ill was not theirs, but they ought to have a choice on how much pain and suffering they are willing to
University of the People
Author Note
This paper is being submitted on March 16, for
PHIL 1404: Ethics and Social Responsibility
Unit 7 – Bioethics and Medical Ethics Euthanasia is the humane and compassionate act of ending a person’s life because their immediate physical circumstance is so bad that death would be a blessing. This discussion is about voluntary euthanasia, where a terminally ill person requests assistance in dying and the moral dilemma it holds ("Voluntary Euthanasia (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)," 2014) A moral dilemma occurs where there are mutually exclusive moral actions to take in a given situation ("Moral Dilemmas (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)," 2002). Voluntary …show more content…
Duty theories base morality on specific principles of obligations or duties to humanity and focus on the intent rather than the consequence. They are also referred to as non-consequential theories. As described in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP), we can generalize duty-based theories as “Duty to God, Duty to Self, and Duty to Others” (Fieser, n.d.). Euthanasia is controversial, among deontological ethicists. Immanuel Kant was a 18th century deontological ethicist who believed we should never treat people as a means to an end and therefore euthanasia would be wrong because it would be treating ones life as a means to end of pain and suffering ("Moral Dilemmas (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)," 2002). Kant also believed there was no dilemma because there is a hierarchy of duties and therefore the duty that served the highest purpose ought to …show more content…
Non-consequential ethics is about intent and regardless of intentions; the consequence of euthanasia is both personal and permanent. Therefore, consequence trumps intent. Virtue ethics focuses on moral character and habitual behavior; therefore, it would not be an appropriate yardstick. Virtue ethics is a great moral compass to use to navigate through life’s obstacles, however, euthanasia is a specific, extremely personal act, and each case ought to be considered individually. In the end, the virtue ethics of the infamous Dr Kevorkian was disruptive to the discussion of euthanasia. The media circus around Dr Death leaves one to wonder his ethics and morals altogether. Therefore, when contemplating euthanasia, consequentialism is the best theory to apply. The situation will be unique for every patient, perhaps not the fact they are terminal, but their rights as individuals to choose how they will die is unique and personal. The choice to become terminally ill was not theirs, but they ought to have a choice on how much pain and suffering they are willing to