Voluntary euthanasia can be defined as a case when the person wants to die and requires assistance. Involuntary euthanasia, on the other hand, means that such a person would prefer to live but has a condition that would cause their death eventually, and the suffering from this condition cannot be alleviated. Murder can be defined as one person causing death to another, which is not provoked by a medical condition or the latter’s request. Execution is completed by the authorities as a result of a court’s sentence due to an individual committing a serious crime.
Under the utilitarianism approach, an action is good if it tends to promote happiness and bad if it causes misery or the opposite of happiness. Moreover, this theory considers not just the person’s happiness but the happiness of everyone impacted (Singer 5). Thus, this is a moral philosophy that argues for activities that promote happiness or pleasure while opposing actions that cause misery or harm.
A utilitarian ideology would seek the welfare of society as a whole while making social or political decisions. Hence, with utilitarianism, euthanasia would be considered bad since, although the person requesting it might be happy that their wish is fulfilled, their friend, family, and loved ones will feel miserable. Legalization would lower the society’s happiness as the community would have many cases of euthanasia; therefore, there would be many families affected by the consequences.
Importantly, euthanasia has to be reviewed by considering a person’s autonomy. The ability of a person to act on his or her own principles and interests is referred to as autonomy. When viewed psychologically, autonomy is comprised of a collection of abilities and attitudes. These include reasoning, appreciating diverse points of view, and debating with others. To perform these tasks, the independent individual must have a strong feeling of self-worth.
Respect for autonomy entails accepting that people have the right to have their own opinions, make their own choices, and act willingly in accordance with their values and preferences. Society has to respect the autonomy of the people because the majority of the social and political institutions are built with this implication. For example, individuals as autonomous agents choose their political representatives in the government based on their values and beliefs. Hence, respect for autonomy would be in favor of euthanasia as this decision would be independently made by a person and would only affect their lives.
Since everyone’s circumstances are skewed, how can individuals agree on a “social compact” to dictate how the world should work. People might avoid knowing who they are and connecting with their particular situations by wearing a “veil of ignorance.” Being unaware of our conditions allows us to think more critically about how society should function. When making a decision about euthanasia’s legality, many social groups are affected; however, only the patient’s interests should be considered.
The patient who might be subjected to euthanasia is the person who will be most affected by this decision, and therefore, their interests must be a top priority for the policymakers. These individuals choose between ending their lives and suffering indefinitely from a severe condition, and such a decision does not have one correct solution, which is why it should be based on a person’s beliefs and values. When coming to this conclusion, one would argue that the support of euthanasia would be morally and legally justified because it is in the best interest of the patient.
In conclusion, euthanasia should be morally justified because if this action is a voluntary decision of the person affected. This is because euthanasia may be the best solution for this person. Moreover, considering the moral obligation to respect the autonomy of others, euthanasia is, in fact, potentially the best possible method of addressing this issue. However, the legal policies concerning euthanasia should clearly define the cases when such an option should be available, such as terminal illness.
Euthanasia would affect the other parties involved negatively; for example, the family and loved ones of the patient would suffer. Under the utilitarian approach, this would not be an ideal solution; however, other moral approaches and theories are in favor of euthanasia. Moreover, unlike involuntary euthanasia, murder, or execution, this case is completely based on the principle of respect for autonomy. Since many of the social and political institutions are built on the principle of autonomy, it should also be applied to the case of euthanasia.
The best objection to this conclusion is that euthanasia might be viewed as a message that it is better to be dead than sick. The underlying implication is that some lives are not worthy. Not only does this endanger the sick or disabled, but it also diminishes their value as human beings while they are living (Scoccia 479; Velleman 665). Hence, people who have a disability or a serious illness and do not want to choose euthanasia might be subjected to social pressure.
The amount of circumstances in which a patient may want or feel obligated to request euthanasia when it is not in their best interests is a big challenge for proponents of legalizing euthanasia. Furthermore, there are occasions where the diagnosis is incorrect, and the patient is not terminally sick. If such a person agrees to have euthanasia, their life will be ended prematurely and for no apparent cause.
John Shield’s euthanasia, in this case, is a good illustration of the case supporting euthanasia. This is because this patient felt empowered as he could decide how he died (“Choosing When And How To Die”; Porter). Moreover, he had a rare and incurable disease, which would cause him severe suffering if he continued living. Hence, in this case, no one acted immorally, and John’s actions are exemplary in light of the debate for euthanasia’s legalization.
Works Cited
“Choosing When and How to Die.” NY Times, Web.
Porter, Katherine. “At his Own Wake, Celebrating Life and the Gift of Death.” NY Times, Web.
Singer, P.. “Voluntary Euthanasia: A Utilitarian Perspective.” Bioethics, vol. 17, no. 5‐6, 2003, pp. 526-541.
Scoccia, Danny. “Physician-Assisted Suicide, Disability, and Paternalism.” Social Theory and Practice, vol. 36, no. 3, 2010, pp. 479-498.
Velleman, J. D. “Against The Right To Die.” Journal of Medicine And Philosophy, vol. 17, no. 6, 1992, pp. 665-681.