The report addressees the cases study with the topic Euthanasia, which is the practice of intentionally ending or terminating a life in order to provide relive a sick person from his or her pain or sufferings (Cohen et al. 2014). The paper analyzes the case study related to Euthanasia and identifies the dilemmas associated with the case study and also ethically analyzes the dilemmas. The paper also identifies two theories that include Rule Utilitarianism and Kant’s Theory, which are related to the topic. These two theories are analyzed and all the components of these theories framework are applied, that includes the strengths and weakness of these theories .The paper also provides the feasible and ethical solution to the dilemma associated with the topic of the case study, Euthanasia synthesizing the main arguments that have been made throughout the paper .
In this case study, it has been observed that a lady has been suffering from a incurable disease and she is on the brink of dying within weeks. The husband of the lady, who has spent 40 years with her, is compelled to see the sufferings and the agonies which his life partner has to go through every day. The woman has been provided with all ranges of medications in order to heal her ailment, which included anti-depressants, painkillers and others but to no avail. The husband of the lady is well aware of the fact that the lady desires to die with dignity as she is suffering a lot and not able to bear the pain due to the terminal illness. However, the lady is physically not in the position that actively give consent to facilitate her death in a painless manner. Both the lady and her husband are well aware of the legal consequence that would arise if the husband aids her to die painlessly. The life partner of the lady or her husband is in a ethical dilemma whether to assist his partner’s death with minimal distress or wait for the ultimate consequence of death of her partner bearing all the pain and sufferings which she is undergoing (Azize 2007).
The case study depicts the case of euthanasia , where the husband of a sick woman is under the dilemma of whether to aid her to die with minimal distress or to let her suffer bearing all the pain until she dies naturally .In Australia majority of the population gave positive response and reviews for Euthanasia . However, both the lady and her husband are convinced that there would be legal consequences if the husband of the suffering woman follows euthanasia (Cholbi and Varelius 2015). Euthanasia is legal in Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg whereas the Physically Assisted suicide or PAS in the Washington State in the United States. In Australia , the legislation regarding Euthanasia is different in different states of Australia (Stackpoole, White and Willmott 2016). In the year 1995 the northern territory of Australia passed the legislation which allowed the practice of Euthanasia , however this was disallowed by the Federal Parliament of Australia in the year 19997 .The practice of Euthanasia raises several number of moral dilemmas :
The two theories that would be used for critically analyzing the topic of Euthanasia related to the case study include the Rule Utilitarianism theory and the Kant’s Duty Ethics Theory. The Kant’s Duty Ethics Theory is an example of a deontological theory or deontological ethics (O’Neill 2013). The German philosopher Emmanuel Kant conceived the Kant Theory. The Kant Duty Ethics theory states that the rightness or the wrongness of any particular actions does not depend on their outcomes or consequences but it is important to know whether these actions fulfill the duty . According to the Kant’s Duty Ethics theory , the act of killing someone or helping them to kill themselves , which is followed in the practice of Euthanasia, is wrong irrespective of the consequences of outcomes . The Kant Duty Ethics Theory states that the practice of Euthanasia should not be legalized or encouraged irrespective of the severity of the situation (Sjöstrand, Helgesson, Eriksson and Juth 2013). The theory states that the man being a rational being , does not possess the authority to formulate a rule of conduct that he or she can take their lives or give the right to the doctors or family members to take their life. So if we consider the case study here and apply the Kant’s Theory of Duty Ethics, it can be said that the husband or the life partner of the patient suffering from terminal illness should not judge it is right or wrong to follow euthanasia and end the life of his partner considering the outcome of severe pain and suffering of his partner as it is against morality. The strength of the Kant’s Duty Ethics Theory is that this theory focuses on the humanity of the people and ultimate importance of their lives and it concludes that Euthanasia is morally wrong (Nisan and Kurtines 2013). The weakness of Kant’s Theory is that it is not very practical because if the human beings were treated with intrinsic value, a dignified death, which is provided by Euthanasia, would be better. The other weakness of this theory is that is very rigid as there may be situations which demands compassion for making practical decisions as in the case of Euthanasia but there is no room for compassion in the Kant’s Duty Ethics Theory . Utilitarianism is the one of the most influential as well as the one of the most effective moral theories (Mill 2016). The Rule Utilitarianism is a type or form of Utilitarianism, which states that an action is right as it complies with a rule, which leads to good (Mulgan 2015). It is claimed by the Rule Utilitarianism that the best and the most effective means of creation of greater good of humanity is through a moral code where the rules of the conduct is clearly understood . According to Rule Utilitarianism, it is morally allowed or permissible if the rules, which have the highest utility, allow it (Nathanson 2014). In this case, scenario of Euthanasia, the theory of Rule Utilitarianism will comply with the same framework as it does in case of morality (Hooker 2013). It states that if the consequence of following the practice of Euthanasia is have good consequence, which is in the case scenario where the patient would be able to die with dignity if euthanasia is followed, this morally allowed in Rule Utilitarianism. The Rule Utilitarianism also emphasizes the fact that it should comply with the laws, which should allow the practice of Euthanasia. The weakness of the Rule Utilitarianism Theory is that it emphasizes on the achievement of greatest happiness but it is very difficult to define what is meant by happiness in this case scenario of Euthanasia. The strength of the theory of Rule Utilitarianism is that it does not have to worry about the consequence of each act to figure what is right. It emphasizes on the rules that creates greatest happiness , in this case , if husband of the patient follows the practice of euthanasia , the patient can die with minimal distress , which would lead to “greatest happiness “ (Tobia 2013).
Conclusion
After studying and analyzing the various aspects of the two theories applicable to the provided case scenario of Euthanasia, the possible solution to the dilemma faced by the husband of the patient has been identified. It is not ethical for the life partner of the patient to assist her to die with minimal distress as there is no justification whatsoever to terminate or end the life of a human being regardless of the circumstances. This solution to the existing dilemma encountered in the case scenario is strengthened by Kant’s Duty Ethics Theory, which emphasizes on the humanity of the people and gives ultimate importance to their lives and thus it suggests that the practice of Euthanasia is morally wrong. Therefore, it can be conclude that the dilemma identified from the case study is solved and it is not ethical for the life partner of the patient suffering from terminal illness regardless of her pain and sufferings.
References
Azize, J 2007, ‘Human Dignity and Euthanasia Law’, University Notre Dame Australian Law Review, vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 47-74
Cholbi, M and Varelius, J, 2015, New Directions in the Ethics of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Springer International Publishing
Cohen, J., Van Landeghem, P., Carpentier, N. and Deliens, L., 2014. Public acceptance of euthanasia in Europe: a survey study in 47 countries. International journal of public health, 59(1), pp.143-156.
Hooker, B 2013, ‘Rule-Utilitarianism and Euthanasia’, in Lafollette, H (ed.), Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, Wiley & Sons
Mill, J.S., 2016. Utilitarianism. In Seven Masterpieces of Philosophy (pp. 337-383). Routledge.
Mulgan, T., 2015. Utilitarianism for a broken world. Utilitas, 27(1), pp.92-114.
Nathanson, S., 2014. Utilitarianism, act and rule.
Nisan, M. and Kurtines, W., 2013. The moral balance model: Theory and research extending our understanding of moral choice and deviation. Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development Application, pp.213-249.
O’Neill, O., 2013. Acting on principle: An essay on Kantian ethics. Cambridge University Press.
Sjöstrand, M., Helgesson, G., Eriksson, S. and Juth, N., 2013. Autonomy-based arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: a critique. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 16(2), pp.225-230.
Stackpoole, C, White, B, and Willmott, L 2016, ‘(Failed) voluntary euthanasia law reform in Australia: two decades of trends, models and politics’. University of New South Wales Law Journal, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 1-46
Tobia, K., 2013. Rule Consequentialism and the Problem of Partial Acceptance. Ethical theory and moral practice, 16(3), pp.643-652.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download
