Introduction
A theory of ethics known as utilitarianism emphasizes outcomes to distinguish between positive and negative ones. According to utilitarianism, the most beneficial path of action will benefit the greatest number of human beings. The ethical framework for medicine has long been divided on the issue of assisted suicide in terminally ill patients. The utilitarian hypothesis states that the moral standards that direct human behavior are centered on achieving the greatest good for the largest number of individuals. This notion supports making the choice that benefits the majority more than just the individual.
Thesis Statement
According to the utilitarianism theory, it is possible to claim that assisted suicide for terminally sick people with a provable death is morally acceptable and should be permitted. A function-utilitarian point of view holds that the primary objective should be to do things that will increase the beneficial consequences and lessen any situation’s adverse outcomes. Patients with advanced medical conditions frequently feel unrelenting pain that might only stop when they pass away. Therefore, this essay examines and explains the utilitarian principles, examines the justifications for assisted suicide, examines objections to the thesis, and responds to those concerns to fully defend the thesis.
Analysis and Explanation
The utilitarian perspective contends that the ethically ideal course of action promotes people’s overall health. This essentially suggests that the morally fair choice benefits the greatest number of people, as opposed to just one person. Consequently, the prospect of assisted suicide may be the morally correct choice for terminally ill people who end their misery and pain and allow them to pass away in peace (Vargo 2). Assisted suicide can lessen the physical and emotional anguish that terminally sick people frequently feel. The result can offer individuals a sense of authority over their existences and prevent a drawn-out, agonizing death.
Furthermore, appropriate measures can be taken to stop abuses and guarantee that the choice to use assisted suicide is made willingly without any intimidation. It could be important to have several medical evaluations and psychotherapy for the ill and anyone close to them (Vargo 3). According to the consequence-based ethical theory of utilitarianism, the appropriateness of an action is decided by its results rather than its core characteristics. The most contented society is one where there is little pain and great joy. Therefore, it makes no difference if the outcome preserves the environment, fosters the mental health of others, or honors the community’s historical significance. This principle is the gold standard for moral conduct in the modern world, improving society, the nation, and the globe.
Arguments in Support
The practice of euthanasia, frequently referred to as assisted suicide, is debatable and poses moral, cultural, and legal issues. Respecting patient autonomy and letting patients make decisions about their care when they die are two arguments for assisted suicide. With assisted suicide, patients can choose a compassionate death over more suffering.
Secondly, assisted suicide can be a compassionate and merciful alternative when terminally ill people are in excruciating pain and unable to enjoy life. They would be able to end their misery in peace and dignity. Compassionate care should allow people to terminate their lives in their circumstances when death is unavoidable (Downie and Schuklenk 7).
Thirdly, the ethics of Responsibility; doctors and other healthcare professionals must give their patients, including those nearing the end of their lives, the finest treatment possible. Assisted dying falls within this ethical obligation because it reduces suffering and improves patient well-being. Furthermore, equal treatment for terminally ill patients is also important; those who opt for life support or suicide assistance should get the same services as those who choose to die naturally. Regardless of their medical state, everyone should have the choice to die peacefully with medication. In addition, deployment of assets, when there is a shortage of medical resources, assisted suicide can assist in the release of funds for treating additional patients. In the end, society as a whole would gain from this.
Examination of Objections
The most frequent objection against the use of assisted suicide is the familiar slippery slope argument. Assisted suicide is thought to eventually result in horrible expansions or abominations of the initial method. These concerns typically revolve around the potential for assisted suicide to become widely accepted, paving the way for a dreaded scenario where medical personnel may kill individuals against their wishes.
Assisted suicide is a legitimate moral issue because killing someone who does not wish to die constitutes murder (Häyry 33). The fear that society may unjustly euthanize individuals of disadvantaged populations, such as the psychologically sick, the disabled, or people from less fortunate backgrounds, is a similar objection to active euthanasia (Downie and Schuklenk 4). This is also a legitimate moral concern, as unfair euthanasia within certain communities might contribute to more serious social problems. It is crucial to develop legal protections to only permit euthanasia in cases where there is explicit patient agreement, and if professionals can retain boundaries between what is lawful and what is unlawful in other contexts.
Assisted suicide is subject to significant religious opposition as well. Assisted suicide is opposed from a religious perspective because it contradicts the idea that God oversees the cycle of life and death and that humans should not plan their deaths or commit suicide. Its opponent claims that a person’s religion should not dictate how they behave in a free society. In this instance, the patient’s and the physician’s religious beliefs are significant (Mroz et al. 3).
It is assumed that if a patient requests active assisted suicide, they do not have any religious convictions that forbid it. A physician may refuse to participate in the procedure out of moral objection if their religious convictions forbid it, which is a regular practice. Conscientious objection is protected under laws authorizing medically aided suicide. Therefore, none of the parties involved would consider life and death to be matters that God should decide.
Response to the Objection
Although the sacredness of life is a strongly held belief, it is crucial to consider the utilitarian theory’s top priorities of advancing overall well-being and minimizing suffering. The most humanitarian action may be assisted suicide when a terminally sick patient is going through excruciating pain and suffering. Though there are worries about the possibility of abuse and misuse, the adoption of rules and restrictions has addressed these. These precautions include ensuring the person has good judgment and makes choices voluntarily, requiring numerous doctors to certify the terminal disease, and more. By following these safeguards, the possibility of a slippery slope can be reduced, allowing the emphasis to be on compassionate care for those who are terminally ill.
Conclusion
Based on the utilitarian theory of maximizing general enjoyment and minimizing suffering, the idea that assisted suicide should be permitted in terminally ill patients whose death is foreseen is put forth. According to utilitarianism, it should be acceptable if ending one’s life results in more overall satisfaction and less misery for the individual making choices and the people they love. However, adequate measures must be taken to guard against abuses and guarantee that the choice was made willingly and without oppression.
Works Cited
Downie, Jocelyn, and Udo Schuklenk. “Social Determinants of Health and Slippery Slopes in Assisted Dying Debates: Lessons from Canada.” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 47, no. 10, 2021, pp. 1–8, Web.
Häyry, Matti. “Just Better Utilitarianism.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, vol. 30, no. 2, 2020, pp. 1–25, Web.
Mroz, Sarah, et al. “Assisted Dying around the World: A Status Quaestionis.” Annals of Palliative Medicine, vol. 9, no. 6, 2020, pp. 57–57, Web.
Vargo, Anna. “Death with Dignity in Canada.” Voices in Bioethics, vol. 8, no. 6, 2022, Web.