Consequentialist Theory Of Euthanasia

In this paper, we are going to present an analysis regarding medical ethics, specifically Euthanasia and we will try to describe the position of a Consequentialist, Deontologist, and Virtue ethics philosophers and what their decision will be in reference to this dilemma. Subsequently we will compare and choose which position is the most appropriate to handle this ethical dilemma and explain why the others positions do not work. We will do our best to present enough evidence to support the reasoning behind our selection. Anything that involves a decision about ending a person’s life regardless of the circumstances, presents ethical dilemmas on how or why this can be done or even worse accepted. Human life is very valuable and should be preserved …show more content…
A consequentialist argues that a moral value of an act depends ultimately on the final outcome of such act so the idea that euthanasia can bring good to people by reducing the suffering that the person has to undergo makes this dilemma morally permissible and puts it under acceptance according to the consequentialist point of view despite the fact that the act is helping to end the life of a person. Now what a deontologist has to say. Deontologist ethics is normally know as the opposite of consequentialist therefore it argues that the moral value of an act is inherent in the act itself and not in the final outcome in other words moral judgment depends only on moral rules that could also be legal rules so the act of euthanasia is ending life which is consider unmoral and even illegal but a the same time deontologist argue that you have to respect others autonomy meaning that at the end if the a person decides to stop the suffering and give consent to a doctor to help them terminate their life’s we should respect