As noted by Ulrich (n.d.), “treating equals as equals and unequals as unequals lies at the heart of the principle of justice” (para. 16). If the right of autonomy was recognized and followed by the law then in theory, Pretty would be able to practice euthanasia as the choice was made autonomously. One cannot be selective in deciding which individuals could exercise their rights while restricting that of another. The inequality of allowing autonomy and impeding choice proved to be unjust in the case of Pretty and euthanasia.
4.3 Paternalism The laws and regulations that made euthanasia illegal within the United Kingdom acted through a method in what some may consider as being paternalistic. Paternalism is described as being “courses of action …show more content…
To offset the paternalist mindset that the law has exhibited when dealing with Pretty, it must be able to change the existing relationship model between patient and the governing body. The existing paternalism-autonomy model relies heavily on paternalism to make the informed decisions in the best interest of the patient as can be seen with the laws that prohibit euthanasia. However, if the law were to take on the contractual model of the paternalism-autonomy relationship, there may have been a different outcome for Pretty’s dilemma. According to Edge & Groves (2006), the contractual model is “a shared decision-making model in which the patient is accorded the right to make decisions and to have control over his own life whenever significant decisions are to be made” (p. 148). The contractual model eliminates paternalist view in favour of working towards empowering the decision of the individual thus leading to more …show more content…
530). The practice of this theory does not base ethical right or wrong based on intent of the actions like the deontological theory does. Instead, it focuses on the outcome of a decisions and whether or not the decision maximized pleasure and utility. Edge & Groves (2006) concluded that “the act of utilitarianism can be captured in the principle that one ought to act as to produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness, everyone considered” (p. 34 & 35). If the law were to take into consideration the utilitarian perspective, it would be more lenient and understanding of the overall situation. As the law is not relational, it cannot adequately determine whether euthanasia would result in greater benefits or not for Pretty. Without this understanding, euthanasia would always be considered illegal regardless of Pretty’s intent. Only after law has understood Pretty’s scenario would it then also understand that letting Pretty suffer from her terminal illness near the end of her life would cause her more pain than the benefits, if any, it would provide for
4.3 Paternalism The laws and regulations that made euthanasia illegal within the United Kingdom acted through a method in what some may consider as being paternalistic. Paternalism is described as being “courses of action …show more content…
To offset the paternalist mindset that the law has exhibited when dealing with Pretty, it must be able to change the existing relationship model between patient and the governing body. The existing paternalism-autonomy model relies heavily on paternalism to make the informed decisions in the best interest of the patient as can be seen with the laws that prohibit euthanasia. However, if the law were to take on the contractual model of the paternalism-autonomy relationship, there may have been a different outcome for Pretty’s dilemma. According to Edge & Groves (2006), the contractual model is “a shared decision-making model in which the patient is accorded the right to make decisions and to have control over his own life whenever significant decisions are to be made” (p. 148). The contractual model eliminates paternalist view in favour of working towards empowering the decision of the individual thus leading to more …show more content…
530). The practice of this theory does not base ethical right or wrong based on intent of the actions like the deontological theory does. Instead, it focuses on the outcome of a decisions and whether or not the decision maximized pleasure and utility. Edge & Groves (2006) concluded that “the act of utilitarianism can be captured in the principle that one ought to act as to produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness, everyone considered” (p. 34 & 35). If the law were to take into consideration the utilitarian perspective, it would be more lenient and understanding of the overall situation. As the law is not relational, it cannot adequately determine whether euthanasia would result in greater benefits or not for Pretty. Without this understanding, euthanasia would always be considered illegal regardless of Pretty’s intent. Only after law has understood Pretty’s scenario would it then also understand that letting Pretty suffer from her terminal illness near the end of her life would cause her more pain than the benefits, if any, it would provide for