Lecretia Seales passed away at the end of 2015, fighting for her life and the right to have an assisted death. Rather than suffering through the end stages of a terminal brain tumor, and all the complications that arise with that, Lecretia started a legal battle with the New Zealand court system to be able to pass away on her own terms. Unfortunately, Lecretia passed away because of her complications of the tumor, but her story created a public debate within New Zealand society, one that is currently being discussed in many countries around the world; what are the ethics behind a person choosing how they die? This essay will analyse the ethics and rights of humans in our society while providing theoretical evidence.
During Lecretia’s battle she preferred the term ‘assisted dying to suicide, or euthanasia’ (Taylor, 2015). Once the brain tumor was diagnosed as terminal, Lecretia realised that her quality of life may degrade, and did not want to put her family and friends through watching her suffer. As …show more content…
If Kant’s rule was applied universally, because she was terminally ill and mentally competent, Lecretia should have had the ability to make a decision for herself, as it is seen as morally acceptable. A universal law such as this would indeed benefit society, as it would also mean that friends and family members would not have to also go through the process of watching their loved one suffer through their illness.
On the opposing side, the theory created by Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarianism is based on consequences. Actions by an individual are judged to be right or wrong through the consequences. If the consequences of someone’s actions are good, it is seen as acceptable and this is known as Act Utilitarianism. Rule Utilitarianism is another form, and this is measured through the amount of happiness or unhappiness created, but not for an individual but for society as a
During Lecretia’s battle she preferred the term ‘assisted dying to suicide, or euthanasia’ (Taylor, 2015). Once the brain tumor was diagnosed as terminal, Lecretia realised that her quality of life may degrade, and did not want to put her family and friends through watching her suffer. As …show more content…
If Kant’s rule was applied universally, because she was terminally ill and mentally competent, Lecretia should have had the ability to make a decision for herself, as it is seen as morally acceptable. A universal law such as this would indeed benefit society, as it would also mean that friends and family members would not have to also go through the process of watching their loved one suffer through their illness.
On the opposing side, the theory created by Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarianism is based on consequences. Actions by an individual are judged to be right or wrong through the consequences. If the consequences of someone’s actions are good, it is seen as acceptable and this is known as Act Utilitarianism. Rule Utilitarianism is another form, and this is measured through the amount of happiness or unhappiness created, but not for an individual but for society as a