English
Patients who have been suffering unbearable pain or are terminally ill and have no hope of getting better, have a right to take a stance and end the misery. And to that end, a medical doctor, for the benefit of such a patient, should consider it ethical and their moral duty to assist the patient commit suicide 1. Doctors should have a clear ethical stance on assisted suicide, so that when the circumstances demand, the doctor, beyond a shadow of doubt, can help the distressed and the patient's family take a prompt decision to avoid any unnecessary agony.
A number of philosophers have written and discussed on the topic of assisted suicide 2. And as a result many schools of philosophical thoughts have come into existence. For the purpose of this writing, I would like to discuss Act Utilitarianism as propounded by Jeremy Bentham and the work of Immanuel Kant on the subject. Act Utilitarianism is founded on the ‘Principle of Utility’, that serves as a base for all utilitarian theories and is best summarised by Bentham's famous phrase, "the greatest good for the greatest number" (Bentham 393). The utilitarian theory of ethics states that any act is ethical and moral if the result of such an act brings about as much happiness in the world as would any action performed to supplement it. (Lyons 7). For the definitions sake, happiness is meant as satisfaction from the act or hedonistic utility. Bentham goes on to say that a man has two masters; namely pain and pleasure. They guide a man’s action. According to the theory, man is hedonistic in nature and thus seeks out pleasure and tries to avoid pain at all cost. Thus this theory advocates the pursuit of pleasure and happiness albeit absence of pain (indirectly). Thus a supporter of Act Utilitarianism would argue that voluntary euthanasia is often right (Telfer 2). Oftentimes such circumstances will arise where being alive is causing more pain and distress than it is bringing pleasure. The act of euthanasia in suffering and terminally ill patients might lead to happiness (at least cessation of agony or relief if not actual happiness) and put an end to the misery of friends and family of the patient after they know that their loved one is not in pain anymore. On a side note, a Utilitarian would also argue that the resources that are being used to keep the patient alive, would be better spent elsewhere that could bring more happiness. The act of voluntary euthanasia would also be considered utilitarian if the right to die with dignity is of paramount importance to the patient and thus would lead to more happiness than would being alive. Immanuel Kant on the other hand was an advocate of deontological perspective. It states humans as possessing the ability to reason which serves as the basis of us being designated as moral agents (Odianosen 5). In his The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, he elaborates on an account of moral duty. For an action to have moral worth and for it to reflect a good will, the action must be performed for duty’s sake and not for any other reason, such as fear of being punished or caught. Also central to this thought is the categorical imperative which may be described as a way of evaluating motives for action. Hence if a doctor decides to assist patient in his suicide, it should be because his motive is to help the patient, not because it’s the law. This would be ethical according to Kant. So Kant has set high standards as far as ethics are concerned, his first formulation is, Act only according to that maxim through which you can will that it became a universal law (Kant 30). So if an ethical argument has reached the conclusion that euthanasia is moral and ethical, that should be applicable universally for you to be able to act on it. The second formulation of Kant goes like, "act so as to treat people as ends in themselves, and never as mere means" (Bailey 666). The underlying idea is that everyone, since he or she is a rational being, is intrinsically valuable; we ought to therefore treat other people as having a value on their own rather than just as useful tools or devices by use of which we can serve our own purposes. Other people are valuable not since they can serve our purposes; but they are just valuable in themselves (Bailey, Martin 1). Thus this coupled with Kant’s concept of autonomy may make assisted suicide not absolutely ethical as value as an end in itself can be found in all humans.
Having analyses two leading philosophers, it can be said that in the matter of assisted suicide, the condition of the patient and his wishes are of paramount importance. As Kant professed, if the motives of doctor are to help the patient, voluntary euthanasia is ethical and can be considered universally right. But any lesser motivations will create more unhappiness than happiness in the world.
Notes
[i] For the purpose of this paper, doctor assisted suicide or euthanasia (that is being argued as ethical) includes only voluntary euthanasia.
[ii] If not directly as assisted suicide or euthanasia, the topic has been discussed as suicide as most of the ethical issues are shared between the two.
Works Cited
[1] Andrew Bailey and Robert M. Martin , First Philosophy: Fundamental Problems and Readings in Philosophy, Second Edition, Broadview, 2011, Print
[2] Bentham, Jeremy (1977). Burns, J.H; Hart, H.L.A., A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government. London: The Athlone Press. p. 393. Print
[3] Kant, Immanuel (1993) [1785]. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Ellington, James W. (3rd ed.). Hackett. p. 30. Print
[4] Lyons, David. Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965, p. vii. Print
[5] Odianosen, Peter. "Immanuel Kant's Moral Theory as a Response to Euthanasia." Immanuel Kant's Moral Theory as a Response to Euthanasia. 25 Feb 2016, p. 12. Web.
[6] Telfer, Elizabeth. "Philosophical Approaches to the Dilemma of Death with Dignity." Philosophical Approaches to Euthanasia. VESS AGM, Aberdeen. 29 June 2015. Http://www.euthanasia.cc/. Web.
