Application of Deontological Theory to Euthanasia

Introduction

Many physicians wonder if they should take part in a patient’s decision to commit suicide. Many patients believe that their decisions are essential than what physicians think, hence forcing them to undertake unethical means. Some people choose to end life when they are distressed or don’t get the support they need from their loved ones. Ethical theories that deal with morality often fix their target on the morally correct action (Seale). This essay will discuss the fundamental aspects of voluntary euthanasia, drawing on specific moral conclusions based on the application of the core principles of deontology and virtue ethics as related to euthanasia. This theory explains that individuals have a moral obligation to behave by the set regulations despite the consequences likely to be incurred. The deontological theory contains essential concepts that aid in reveal the efficient decisions that a physician or a medical practitioner should undertake in such circumstances. Based on this theory, physicians have a responsibility to not assisting individuals to commit suicide when they do not meet the set standards regardless of what the consequences might be. An objection concerning this argument is that such a move is inappropriate as it may impact negatively on people who no longer enjoy life and want to end it

Application of Deontological Theory.

Whether active or passive, voluntary or involuntary, the act of euthanasia raises questions about morality and the rights of individuals over their own life or someone else’s. Several philosophical theories have raised issues on the morality of this subject. One that the philosopher Immanuel Kant is generally associated with is deontological ethics. The deontological theory explains that people have a responsibility to ensure that their actions follow the set rules and regulations regardless of the outcome (Alexander & Michael). This theory is in direct contrast to other utilitarianism theories, which believe that action results in positive outcomes or impacts. Persons advocating for the deontological theory argue an act is morally upright because of its features, rather than its results (Seale). They insist that most actions fail moral obligations despite their adverse impacts on human welfare. One of the significant characteristics of deontological ethics illustrates that individuals should conduct duty for the sake of duty (Kant). Kant explained that people could make rational decisions, enabling them to act as per the moral lawyer’s duty. He believed that the emotions, impacts, and inclinations of human beings should not be used as a measure of moral action. Morality would entail providing a framework of rational policies to a society that helps to direct and prevent some actions, rather than depending on personal opinions and likes (Alexander & Michael). Another attribute of deontological ethics is how it shows the importance of considering people as objects of intrinsic moral value. Correct moral action must not be in response to a particular condition, such as the opinion of a person making a decision. Moreover, Kant thought that individuals should regard humanity as an end rather than a way to an end. This shows that we should undertake actions that are for all people’s good but not use them for selfish gains. Finally, deontological ethics illustrates that moral actions are universal, and hence they ought to be applied to all individuals experiencing the same moral situation.

Based on the deontological theory’s above characteristics, it would be okay for physicians to refuse the request to end the life of an individual if they feel that a person doesn’t meet the set standards. The first feature of this theory explains that people should perform their duties for the sake of those duties (Kant). People have the capability of making effective decisions, which shows the importance of acting following moral duty. A moral action should conform to the set rules and principles of a particular society that help to regulate the behaviors of the members. This concept is relevant to the previous question, illustrating that physicians should undertake actions that align with the societal principles (Seale). In this situation, refusing to assist in committing suicide in cases that do not meet the set rules is appropriate since they have a moral responsibility of adhering to the set laws. They should bear in mind that it is wrong to take part in illegal activities, and hence they have a moral duty of not performing such acts. The other principle of deontological ethics explains the importance of considering people as objects of inherent moral value, showing the necessity of treating people with dignity (Seale). This principle contains crucial concepts that can aid in directing the decisions of physicians in connection with the question addressed in this essay. Adhering to the illegal requests of patients would prove them to be using people as means, which ought not to be the case. Thus, it is right to disobey the illegal and unlawful requests of patients since it perceives individuals as an end. Lastly, moral action should apply to the same moral situations. However, unlawful requests are not universal, and hence refusing to perform them is morally okay (Kant). The physician should disregard such requests ignoring the impacts of their actions.

Furthermore, Kant pursued moral principles that did not rest on eventualities, but instead defined actions fundamentally right or wrong separately from its circumstance, while trusting that the reasoning behind it would be revealed via the basic principles of morality (Alexander & Michael). The principles Kant spoke of were a duty, goodwill, and the categorical imperative. These principles raise the questions of what establishes our duties and what is required of us morally? Kant’s answer is found in what he called the ‘categorical imperative,’ which answers the ‘what makes a moral act right’ question. Based on Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative (the universal law formulation), a man should not formulate a law that allows a person, regardless of their physical or mental condition, to take their own life (Seale). He believes that allowance of such a law would result in a hypothetical imperative rather than a categorical one. In his second formulation of the categorical imperative (humanity as an end in itself), Kant says that irrespective of the condition of the body, humanity is an end, not a means to an end. As such, no one has the right to take his own life (Alexander & Michael). Doing so would show a lack of respect not only for our own life but also for human life in general.

Objection to the Argument

When the question of morality arises about virtue ethics, it seems that the answer to the action’s morality comes down to the actor’s virtuousness. Virtue ethics leads us to say that the morality of euthanasia depended upon the circumstances of a given situation (Ganzini et al.). Virtue ethicist argues that aiding a person is compassionate or generous. When it comes to considering the morality of euthanasia, a person of virtue would have to ponder numerous details before making a decision. Among the issues to consider would be the suffering of the person, his family, or friends. Whether prolonging life is prolonging, or in a worst-case scenario, lengthening the suffering. Would euthanasia benefit the person? Are there any treatments or medications that could assist in lessening the suffering or prolonging the life, and if so, is the cost beyond the scope of the patient? Each fight for euthanasia would have to be carefully examined to come to a moral conclusion based on virtue ethics.

Based on virtue ethics and utilitarianism, allowing physicians to disregard patients’ requests to end their lives on the ground that they are unlawful is not right. Golden & Tyler do not support the notion of allowing physicians to disregard the requests to end a patient’s life. This is because some deaths are usually excruciating. Such a move can cause more trauma to a patient than give in to his or her demand. Moreover, they argue that why would life be meaningful if a person cannot in any way be able to participate in activities that make life enjoyable? (Golden & Tyler). Thus, they feel that it would be better to die with dignity than suffer for a given period and eventually experience a painful death. It is in such circumstances that a physician may decide to give in to an unlawful request to assist a patient who he or she feels that his or her life is in an unbearable condition. In such cases, it becomes right to act contrary to the set rules and standards to attain a high level of pleasure as advocated by utilitarianism (Ganzini et al.). This theory explains that a physician should consider the impact of an action to undertake the one that leads to a high satisfaction level. Hence, disregarding unlawful requests is right since it helps to preserve life in most instances.

Conclusion

Deontological ethics support the fact physicians should deny the request of assisting unlawful suicide since it is a moral obligation. They have a responsibility to ensure that their actions are acceptable by all people. They should not undertake any action to achieve their selfish motives but rather ensure that their actions value humans as an end. Utilitarianism and virtue ethics disagree with this argument as it advocates for the need to consider the outcome when making decisions. It argues that denying such requests may cause more trauma to patients by allowing them to live uncomfortable lives and finally experience a painful death.