euthanasia

A02)  “Natural law gives a very straight forward and apparently objective way of deciding between right and wrong, avoiding many of the ambiguities of assessing expected results.”

Ethics by Mel Thomson

What are other approaches to euthanasia?

Kant’s theory is very different to the natural law approach, it concerns the categorical imperative. When considering euthanasia Kant is not interested in the level of suffering or that we should do the most loving thing. A follower of Kant’s theory would work out what the right thing do. Kant said we should act according to the maxims that we would make into the laws of nature. The last statement of the Categorical Imperative says we should not use people as a means to an end. Kant may have said that killing someone to end their pain was using them to another end. Other Kantians might argue the opposite; that a person's ends are best served by ending their misery. Kant’s theory is not the best approach as it can be seen as selfish as it does not consider the level of suffering or the loving thing.

Another approach is; Situation Ethics. Situation ethics was put forward by Joseph Fletcher in the 1960s; he came up with a set of criteria for personhood. A situationist view would be that it is unrealistic to try to legislate on such matters, and that what counts is to do the most loving thing in each situation. In case of euthanasia the most loving thing to do might be to give someone a peaceful death.  Situation ethics is a good approach as it is personal  and  puts people before rules, It is also Pragmatic allowing us to do whatever works best in the circumstances. What is the use in keeping someone alive to suffer? However situation is not always the best approach as it ignore laws and rules.

Utilitarianism is a teleological theory it is concerned with consequences, not with act it self. So a follower of utilitarianism will argue that euthanasia should be allowed for certain reasons. A follower of Utilitarianism will ask the question does the end justify the mean “Actions are right to the degree that they tend to promote the greatest good for the greatest number” utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism measure the outcome by using the hedonic or utility calculus.  In case of euthanasia would look at; the intensity and duration of the pain, the extend of number of people effected, consider weather keeping someone alive would lead to other pleasures- richness, also consider the amount of other pain the person would face for example; loss of dignity- purity, also would need to consider the chances that there might be a cure in the future- certainty and lat of all consider the pain is immediate, while possible future benefits are remote. In most cases if the degree of pain is so great that followers of Utilitarianism will support euthanasia. Utilitarianism is a good approach as it takes all things in to account.

Virtue ethics is another theory that has an approach to euthanasia. Aristotle believed we should aim for eudemonia (happiness), but the sort of happiness resulting from a life in perfect balance. Eudemonia means we have developed habits of patience, temperance, courage, wisdom, judgment ect.  People suffering greatly from illness would not be living a eudaimon life. Virtue ethics is not the best approach as it is not always clear, would we expect someone to have the patience to cope with their condition, or the courage to end their own life.

Is Natural law the best approach to euthanasia? Natural law can be seen as a good approach to euthanasia is it allows people to take a natural rightful course and recognises that everyone has the right to life. However the approach is not always clear as it allows euthanasia in cases of passive euthanasia and double effect. Another reason why natural law is not always the best approach is because “It has been argued that a belief in a loving and compassionate God entitles the belief that he would want people to have a worth while life that is not subject to intense pain.” Euthanasia by Reg Luhman.  Also to give pain- killing drugs or to perform an operation that would prolong life is also interfering with the course of nature, “it would be wrong to end life prematurely as it would be to extend arifically.” By Reg luhman. Natural law also ignores the situation, the out come and the happiness of the person. So natural law is not always the best approach.