The Morality of Human Euthanasia
Loading...
Mentor Information
Dr. Gregory McCreery
Description
Without proper guidelines in the medical field, patients become vulnerable to degrading treatments that deprive them of their dignity. One particularly controversial dispute is the morality around human euthanasia, or the consensual termination of a patient’s life to alleviate future suffering. While active euthanasia ends the patient’s life through lethal methods, passive euthanasia ends the patient’s life through withdrawal of treatments. This study investigates the role of moral frameworks in evaluating active and passive euthanasia’s morality. Specifically, by using each moral framework’s original philosophical texts, this study will decide whether active and passive euthanasia is considered moral under the Hippocratic Oath, Kantian deontology, and Mill’s utilitarianism. Then, each moral framework’s strengths and limitations would be examined to consider their ideal scenarios for application. Ultimately, passive euthanasia is considered morally permissible under all three moral frameworks due to its greater acceptance by physicians, fulfillment of patients’ requests, and predicted decrease in suffering. Although active euthanasia fulfills patients’ requests and ends their suffering, it is still morally prohibited due to widespread fear regarding its implementation. This research can guide policymakers in implementing passive euthanasia since it emphasizes the roles of family and friends in deciding whether euthanasia should be performed on the patients. It also contributes to discussions around euthanasia as it illustrates that euthanasia should not be kept solely between the patient and the physician. By evaluating euthanasia’s morality through different moral reasoning, proper guidelines can be developed for physicians to preserve patients’ dignity through euthanasia.
The Morality of Human Euthanasia
Without proper guidelines in the medical field, patients become vulnerable to degrading treatments that deprive them of their dignity. One particularly controversial dispute is the morality around human euthanasia, or the consensual termination of a patient’s life to alleviate future suffering. While active euthanasia ends the patient’s life through lethal methods, passive euthanasia ends the patient’s life through withdrawal of treatments. This study investigates the role of moral frameworks in evaluating active and passive euthanasia’s morality. Specifically, by using each moral framework’s original philosophical texts, this study will decide whether active and passive euthanasia is considered moral under the Hippocratic Oath, Kantian deontology, and Mill’s utilitarianism. Then, each moral framework’s strengths and limitations would be examined to consider their ideal scenarios for application. Ultimately, passive euthanasia is considered morally permissible under all three moral frameworks due to its greater acceptance by physicians, fulfillment of patients’ requests, and predicted decrease in suffering. Although active euthanasia fulfills patients’ requests and ends their suffering, it is still morally prohibited due to widespread fear regarding its implementation. This research can guide policymakers in implementing passive euthanasia since it emphasizes the roles of family and friends in deciding whether euthanasia should be performed on the patients. It also contributes to discussions around euthanasia as it illustrates that euthanasia should not be kept solely between the patient and the physician. By evaluating euthanasia’s morality through different moral reasoning, proper guidelines can be developed for physicians to preserve patients’ dignity through euthanasia.
