Question

Of the three topics we explored this Module: Abortion, Euthanasia, and Health Care, which one do you have the strongest stance on? Explain your viewpoint and name an ethical thinker or theory that would support you and why.

Answer 1

Ans ;

Euthanasia - is the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering.

Different countries have different euthanasia laws. The British House of Lords select committee on medical ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering". In the Netherlands and Belgium, euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient". The Dutch law, however, does not use the term 'euthanasia' but includes the concept under the broader definition of "assisted suicide and termination of life on request".

Theories supporting ;

If someone has a terminal illness and are in pain, they may seek assisted suicide in mercy. In this situation, death is unavoidable and their suffering is in vain.

Most central to this ethical problem is whether killing is okay.

Fundamentally, we say it is not okay to kill another human, but unlike most ethical and moral theories, life has exceptions.

For instance, most people don't blink at the thought of killing at all, their answer is an absolute "no, it's not okay--ever".

But what about capital punishment? It is mostly accepted and just another day when we hear of a convicted murderer being euthanized. This type of killing falls under retributivism, and is a form of vindication and closure for the victim's family when a murderer is murdered.

There are two ethical approaches to this dilemma. Kantians and Utilitarians.

A Utilitarian approach to this dilemma would allow the mercy killing only if certain conditions are met. Utilitarians do not follow divine command, thus they are not bound by a holy scripture to find guidance.

A Utilitarian would weigh the circumstances and state that the right thing to do is whatever results in the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people involved. Thus if the person wanted to die, and less family members objected than those who agreed, the mercy killing would be OK.

However, if more family members objected than agreed, the Utilitarian would push the principles of the Utilitarian approach back on the family members to ask what would result in the greatest amount of happiness. In a mercy killing case, the unnecessary suffering of a family member that will inevitably result in death is not choosing to produce the greatest amount of happiness. Thus the conclusion would be to allow the mercy killing.

A Kantian approach would disagree that mercy killing is the right thing to do as it would result in a new acceptable behavior of murdering. Although it, too, excludes divine command, its theory states whatever you do, you create a universal law. So by killing you are approving of murder without exception. Kantians don’t believe in exceptions to creating universal laws. However; the inconsistency here is that Kantians agree with retributivism.