Introduction
The topic euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide remains to be a topic of concern across various settings all around the globe. Speaking of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, this connotes to the deliberate instigation of death of an individual for the sole benefit of that individual. The scope of physician-assisted suicide can be traced back to the close of the year 1990, when Dr. Kevorkian Jack, retired pathologist utilized assisted suicide to help one of his patients (Gorsuch 24). Since this episode, the topic on assisted suicide has evolved into one of the most equivocal topics. In fact, this topic has evolved immense sentiments from populations in support, as well as those opposed to the use of euthanasia. As such, there are various arguments in support and in opposition of euthanasia.
Discussion
While it was often perceived that physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia was only permissible amongst patients who are terminally ill, the recent past has experienced the emergence of pertinent notions that a person does not have to be terminally ill in order for physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia to be instituted. As such, it has been hypothesized that physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia should also apply for patients who are not terminally ill, but their illness subjects them to physical and psychological harm or pain. One of the major arguments in support of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia for patients who are not terminally aligns with the fact that there are certain disease that are not chronic, but reduce the quality of life of persons diagnosed with such conditions. For this purpose, instead of allowing such diseases to jeopardize the quality of an individual, it is better to end the life of such persons in order to mitigate the sufferings imposed by such conditions.
Another justification for physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia even in cases where an individual is not suffering from a terminal illness is the fact that the right to dies is a personal decision that should not be interfered with by anyone. Notably, life is filled with a wider array of challenges and opportunities in equal measure. Amidst all life situations, individuals should be allowed to decide on what is best for them. It is on this basis that even individuals who are not suffering from terminal illnesses, but prefer physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia should be allowed to die as per their will (Gorsuch 77). Precisely, there are certain situations whereby an individual does not see the value of life; hence, people should not be forced to live life against their will. For this reason, physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia should be available to any person’s discretion.
Despite the notions developed by those in support of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia even in cases where an individual is not suffering from a terminal illness, there is a need to note that a number of counterarguments have been developed on the same. Those opposed to the use of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia for patients who are not terminally ill articulate that there nothing such as a life not worth living. Precisely, every life holds a promise, even in cases where someone is suffering from non-terminal illnesses that impose any form of physical or psychological harm. In a nutshell, physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia can never qualify as a compassionate means of ending a patient’s life. Instead, it is unethical to end the life of a patient who is not suffering from a terminal illness, yet there is hope for recovery amongst such patients (MacKinnon 84).
On another note, permission of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia for patients who are not terminally ill would pose detrimental effects on the lives of vulnerable populations. There are certain populations segments that are certainly bound to become victims of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia despite the fact that they may not be suffering from any terminal illnesses. Such populations include the mentally ill, the disabled, as well as the elderly. Implementation of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia does not have a substantive basis for justification. In fact, there are no safeguards in the instigation of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia amongst patients who are not terminally ill. This analysis depicts the manner in which physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia is not justifiable amongst patients not suffering from terminal illnesses. In fact, instigating physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia amongst patients who are not suffering from terminal illnesses would mean that such patients are subjected to death using deceitful means (Gorsuch 19).
Application of Utilitarianism
Application of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia on patients who are terminally ill can be interpreted differently from the utilitarian point of view. Worth noting is the fact that utilitarianism claims that the morality of a certain issue is defined by the outcome. There exists two forms of utilitarianism; Act and Rule utilitarianism. Notably, Act utilitarianism claims that actions are deemed justified is the produce the best possible results. On the other hand, Rule utilitarianism notes that an action is justified if it produces the best results while conforming to existing rules (Weinstein 71). Application of Act utilitarianism in the case of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia amongst patients who are not terminally ill will mean that the opponents are right because physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia is not the best available option for persons who are not terminally. Precisely, persons who are not terminally ill can still recover and live better lives than dying. In the case the best utility or outcome for persons who are not terminally ill is to live rather than die. Application of rule utilitarianism will also render physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia amongst patients who are not terminally ill unjustified and uncalled for. This is because rules on physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia dictates that such actions are only justified in cases where there is substantive proof that a patient has not chance of recovering. For this reason, physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia amongst patients who are not terminally ill does not consider existing rules on the same; hence, unjustified.
Application of Kantian Moral Theory
Kant’s moral theory claims that the moral worth of an action is determined by reasoning, which occurs in cases where an individual does an activity as a duty and not for any other reason such as avoiding punishment (White 33). Based on Kant’s arguments, duty and goodwill go hand in hand; therefore, an action that is done as a duty reflects goodwill, which makes it right. Based on Kant’s categorical imperative views, a duty that is done with good will can be transformed into a universal law that guides a wider array of issues in the society (White 109). With regards to the use of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia amongst patients who are not terminally ill, Kant would approve to such notions only if such actions can be transformed into a universal law. Deductively, Kantianism would oppose the use of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia amongst patients who are not terminally ill because such an action does not qualify to be a universal law. Precisely, a significant proportion of the populations would not conform to the use of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia for patients who are not terminally ill. This is because such patients still have a chance to live, and decisions on the use of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia are personal; hence, do not qualify to become a universal law. In conclusion, Kantianism may not find any justification in the use of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia amongst patients who are not terminally ill.
Theory that comes up with the Best Answer
Based on a personal thought, the theory that comes up with an argument that is closely aligned with the notion I have for the use physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia amongst patients who are not terminally ill is Kant’s moral theory. Based on a personal thought, the mere fact that some few individuals who are not suffering from terminally ill conditions would wish to have physician-assisted suicide does not justify the ethicality of the same. This concurs with Kant’s view on the same. Kant’s would approve the use of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia amongst patients who are not terminally ill only in cases where such an action can be accepted unopposed. However, the justification for physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia among patients who are not terminally ill is limited to certain individuals in the society and not everyone. In conclusion, the use of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia amongst patients who are not terminally ill is not ethical.
Work Cited
Gorsuch, Neil M. The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2006. Print.
MacKinnon, Barbara. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, Concise Edition. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.
Weinstein, D. Utilitarianism and the New Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print.
White, Mark D. Kantian Ethics and Economics: Autonomy, Dignity, and Character. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 2011. Print.
