Kant Against Euthanasia

Euthanasia has been a much-debated issue in the healthcare community for several decades. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a person suffering from a terminal illness, irreversible coma, or a permanent vegetative state. Euthanasia can also be referred to a physician- assisted suicide (PAS). This is when a doctor prescribes a lethal dose of a medication and either the patient administers it or the physician gives it to the patient. Kant may have been against suicide, but euthanasia can be seen as “death with dignity” which Kant would therefor agree with. Also, cases such as euthanasia with Alzheimer’s patients, Kant would agree with this because the patients are about to lose their rational functions and Kant believes these are necessary. …show more content…
Under the Categorical imperative, forbidding suicide is derived from the principle of universalization. Kant's argument is mostly about committing suicide as a desire to avoid evil, and suffering could very much be an evil (Brassington). There is no reason why it euthanasia is immoral in a person who is using euthanasia as a way to relieve the suffering of their terminal illness or the suffering of losing (or lacking) rational function. Kant claims that a suicide would be “making use of his person merely as a means to maintain a tolerable condition until the end of his life” (Brassington). This is conflicting with the moral law, which claims that we treat people as an end in themselves, and never solely as a means. Kant believes in giving people dignity that is “beyond price; no matter what advantage we may gain by treating a person as a means to an end, this will never be sufficient to offset the value of their personhood” (Brassington). Humans have dignity because they are rational beings - that is, being capable of making their own decisions, setting their own goals, etc. (Rachels). The concept of dignity