Euthanasia and person-assisted suicide (PAS) are hot topics for ethical debates. There are two sides to the argument – one is pro-euthanasia, and the other is against such a practice. The reasoning behind accepting PAS and euthanasia is that this way, people’s autonomy is respected, and autonomy is viewed as one of the fundamental human rights. On the other side, people against PAS and euthanasia consider it unethical and dangerous as it may lead to dangerous social consequences, in which other unethical practices could be legalized.
Considering the positions of both sides, the argument can be described from a consequentialist point of view. Consequentialism is an ethical theory that evaluates an action according to the consequences and repercussions that it has. Hence, euthanasia supporters view harm-reduction and respecting one’s right to autonomy as consequences that outweigh ethical implications associated with the practice. People against euthanasia view the consequences of legalization as a gateway to other unethical practices being accepted, which is a slippery slope that could lead to adverse consequences to the fundamental principles and values of society.
There are multiple scholars that contributed to the analysis of the ethical and legal status of euthanasia. According to Smith (2005), in a slippery slope argument, the question arose from a consequentialist point of view, the act of judgment was morally right depending on the consequences. However, the conclusion about the adverse consequences, in which legalization or acceptance or legalization will lead to acceptance or legalization of other unethical things, is rather logical than necessary (Sjöstrand, Eriksson, & Juth, 2011). There is no factual or empirical evidence that would increase the likelihood of such a possibility. Therefore, the argument against PAS and euthanasia is based on calculating the possibility of consequences.
In addition, the argument about the ethical and legal status of euthanasia is more complex as there is voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. Hence, slippery-slope theory proponents argue that the partial acceptance or legalization of voluntary euthanasia would lead to a possible justification of non-voluntary euthanasia that does not involve the argument about autonomy. It applies to supporters of PAS and euthanasia, as there is a distinction between assisting one’s suicide, performing voluntary euthanasia and performing non-voluntary euthanasia that is perceived by 80% of medical workers as murder (Dickinson et al., 2002). Hence, the possible effects of healthcare workers’ psychological well-being should be taken into account.
Therefore, the consequentialist perspective provides insights into the position of euthanasia supporters as well. The argument about respecting one’s rights to make autonomous decisions may be viewed as sufficient for the case of PAS or voluntary euthanasia. However, non-voluntary euthanasia violates one’s right to autonomy, and legalization or acceptance of such an act may have concerning consequences. From the consequentialist point of view, accepting a practice that may have negative repercussions associated with non-voluntary euthanasia is unacceptable.
There is another consequentialist argument that contributes to the pro-euthanasia position. The discourse revives not only autonomy rights but also principles of harm reduction. Weinstock (2020) states that deliberate harm reduction effectively accounts for some of the most appealing aspects of harm minimization. This position calls for the individual analysis of each case, and the decision will be made on whether or not harm reduction is sufficient to justify ending one’s suffering. Weinstock (2020) stresses consequentialist concerns to regulate and control the activity rather than descend the pointless route of determining whose view is accurate about the ethical implications of the conduct.
In conclusion, consequentialism can act in favour of people against PAS and euthanasia as well as its supporters. Therefore, the acceptance and the legal status of such a practice cannot be generalized. In addition, it should not strictly adhere to either side of the argument. Instead, consequentialism emphasizes the necessity to include all the possible consequences into account.
References
Dickinson, Lancaster, C. J., Clark, D., Ahmedzai, S. H., & Noble, W. (2002). U.K. physicians’ attitudes toward active voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Death Studies, 26(6), 479–490.
Sjöstrand, Helgesson, G., Eriksson, S., & Juth, N. (2011). Autonomy-based arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: a critique. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 16(2), 225–230.
Smith. (2005). Fallacies of the Logical Slippery Slope in the Debate on Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. Medical Law Review, 13(2), 224–243.
Weinstock. (2020). Disagreement, Unenforceability, and Harm Reduction. Health Care Analysis, 28(4), 314–323.