Kant And Euthanasia

For most people the topic of death can be very disheartening or painful to talk about not only in regards to their own death, but in regards to that of a loved one, family member, or even a friend, so generally they try to steer clear of that particular subject. However if euthanasia is brought up into the conversation views change and people want to make their voices and opinions heard, especially when it is in regards to their religious beliefs about the matter, sometimes it just sparks a flame deep down inside of an individual that they did not even realize they had. Euthanasia is, “the act or practice of killing hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.”(www.merriam-webster.com). The majority of most religions are against euthanasia because they feel as though it goes against their beliefs, Roman Catholics, Judaism, Islam, Buddhist and Protestant just to name a few. There are plenty of reasons why these religious groups feel so strongly about euthanasia each has their own view on the matter, but they come together to an understanding about this topic. The major reasons why they feel as if euthanasia violates a religious standpoint is that collectively these groups feel that only God has the power to take life away, it devalues human life, it is seen as murder or even suicide and religious scripture has taught against a person or another person ending someone’s life.

" God made man in his own image, male and female he created them." Gen

Euthanasia is argued to be defined as depriving of life or causing the death of a living being. A primary and controversial component to euthanasia is the idea that the physicians are acting in “God” like form. Christians are thought to believe that “thou shall not kill.” Christians believe that all human beings have been in created in God’s image and should be cherished in all circumstances. However, according to the article written by Ann-Marie Begley, she explains, “if only God can end a life, then clearly all instances of killing are wrong, including killing in war and self defense” (Begley 300). The only way this philosophy can be upheld is with complete pacifism in which most Christians would not agree with. The other argument opposing euthanasia is the concern about the perceived public role of the physician. The metaphorical stance of doctors seen around the country is that they are the ‘enemies of death.’ The fear is that the image would be eroded resulting in the lost of trust within the public. Ann-Marie Begley explains, “the trust does not rest with the cure and healing but with the compassion and a recognition that there comes a time when the healer has reached the limits of his or her ability” (Begley 303). The argument of depriving someone of life is also seen in equivalence to murder. Scholars also differentiate murder from euthanasia in that euthanasia there is no malice

Euthanasia is categorized in various forms. The first category deals with the patient’s consent. Voluntary euthanasia refers to a patient making the voluntary enduring demand to be assisted with the procedure of assisted suicide while involuntary euthanasia is ending the patient’s life without their consent or awareness. Euthanasia is also categorized in the approach the patient’s life was ended. Active euthanasia is ending a patient’s life by the use of drugs with or without the aid of a physician. Passive euthanasia is terminating a patient’s life by disregarding the necessary actions to maintain life such as withdrawing water, food, drugs, medical and surgical procedures. While passive euthanasia is legal in Canada, active euthanasia is considered murder and is illegal.

Moreover, euthanasia is restricted by the church. This is another important point that we should consider, especially for religious people. According to “Death and Dignity” it is emphasized that “Life is a gift from God and it is only God who can take it back”. Christian’s point of view considers euthanasia as a crime against church, religion and God. Christians consider this as an immoral act. When considering the religious factor as well, we can conclude that no one has the right to take control over our lives, especially when we are unconscious.

The above-mentioned types of Euthanasia can be further divided into two more major parts: Active and Passive Euthanasia. The hastening of the death of a person by active procedures such as deliberately overdosing on a medicine is known as Active Euthanasia. On the other hand, Passive Euthanasia is when death to a patient is brought by an omission. It is when the treatment necessary for the continuance of life is brought to an end. For example, ventilators or life support

Many religions such as Protestantism, Buddhism, and Catholic go against Suicide in any form as well as some other religions. While this may be true, it goes against the constitution to entrust a religion on anybody. This being the case, Euthanasia patients should have the right to decide this. They should not be limited to other people’s beliefs. In the first amendment of the constitution, it prohibits the government from “encouraging or promot[ing]… religion in any way” ( ACLU 6). Exempting patients from Euthanasia because of religion is a form of discrimination amongst them. Religion should not take away the right to perform

Those who are against euthanasia may also believe that life is a sacred thing that isn’t ours to take. Many different religions believe this like Christianity, Jewish faith, and some Muslim faiths believe that god is the only one that can take a life. However, in America, we have freedom of religion. Patients who have these religions just won’t take this option. Those who are atheists, or have a religion that don’t believe in this have the option of euthanasia. America is a free country, where people have the choice of what they want to do. The religion of a few shouldn’t determine the life of people who don’t believe in it.

When speaking of goodwill, it is important to point out that “for Kant, nothing is good except a good will” (Odianosen, n.d.). This thought process states that as long as the intended action is done out of goodwill, the results of the intended action are irrespective of the motives. When applied to euthanasia, both passive and active, as well as physician assisted suicide, it is up to the physician to determine the fate of the patient based upon their own perceived morals. Additionally, Kantian ethics brings out the idea of duty. Duty, as Odianosen points out “goes hand in hand with goodwill” (Odianosen, n.d.). The question raised, is how is our duty determined? And thus how do we know what our goodwill is based upon our duty? Enter the categorical imperative. In order to act according to the categorical imperative Kant, as quoted by Odianosen, believes that “we should act in such a way that we can all will the maxim of our actions to become a universal law” (Odianosen, n.d.). Kant’s idea of a maxim was a “subjective principle of an action, the principle or rule that people in effect formulate in determining their conduct” (Odianosen, n.d.). However, Odianosen points out that “Kant would not agree with anybody who out of self-love decides to take his/her life. This is because this is a system that aims at destroying life; hence this maxim could not possibly

Euthanasia has always been a common topic especially a debatable one talking about allowing patients who are suffering from any incurable disease or condition or even in an irreversible coma to choose to end their live on their own terms painlessly. The following will discuss a specific case and analyzed using the Christian worldview. Since the moral debate of euthanasia is such a topic of controversy, potential solutions towards the issue, and how such solutions can be compared to the core beliefs and the values within the Christian worldview.

According to Webster’s dictionary the term euthanasia Is defined as, “ the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering.” Now then there are two primary types of euthanasia according to Rachel’s. We have Passive Euthanasia in which the physician does nothing to bring about the death of the patient. By this physician doing nothing, ceasing treatment, the patient dies of the illness he already was diagnosed with. The patient dies of natural causes. The doctor is therefore letting the patient die. Then we have Active Euthanasia were the physician does something to bring about the death of the patient. The physician gives the terminally ill patient a lethal injection therefore now making the doctor the

Unlike Utilitarianism however, Kantianism states that ethics is a purely a priori discipline, thus, independent of experience, and that ethical rules can only be found through pure reason. Also contrary to Utilitarianism, Kantianism asserts that the moral worth of an action should be judged on its motive and the action itself, and not on its consequences. Based on these ideas, Kantianism propose that an action is good only if it performed out a 'good will '; which is the only thing that is good, in and of itself. To act out of a 'good will ', one must act in accordance with a categorical imperative. According to Kant there is only one categorical imperative, which is to "act only on that maxim in which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" (Kant, 528); and can also be formulated as "act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as means, but always at the same time as an end" (Kant, 532). Essentially, the categorical imperative states that your actions must not result in a practical contradiction, which can be determined by conceptualizing all other people performing the same act. To illustrate, if I were

Christians are mostly against euthanasia. The arguments are usually based on the beliefs that life is given by God, and that human beings are made in God's image this is told to us in Genesis 1:27 “So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them”. As Christians our laws are based upon the 10 commandments, the 6th commandment is” thou shalt not kill” this commandment is connected to Euthanasia because you are killing a child before they have had the chance to experience life. John. Paul II view on Euthanasia is “Euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person.”

The philosophical theories and ethics of two philosophers, Aristotle and Kant, offer two differing views on the morality of euthanasia. Margaret P. Battin’s “Euthanasia: The Way We Do It, the Way They Do It” offers three countries’ perspectives on and laws regarding euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide, as well as evaluations and critiques of their policies. To determine which of these points of view has the most pertinence, all of these arguments will be outlined and consequently analyzed, both separately and in relation to each other. Their differences and similarities will be enumerated and described, consequently their merit will be discussed. Ultimately, Aristotle’s moral theory centering around eudaimonia will be shown to be superior to Kant’s categorical imperative, because of its flexible nature when evaluating the acceptability of euthanasia under different circumstances.

The term Euthanasia is derived from the Greek words, Eu (good) and Thanatosis (death) meaning a very gentle and easy death. The definition of euthanasia has now come down to “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” Therefore, this term can be also called “mercy killing”. In this sense euthanasia means the active or inactive death of a patient. This form of “easy death” for hopeless and suffering patients has been around since ancient ages as, Mesopotamia strictly forbade euthanasia following the sixth commandment “thou shall not kill”, India practiced it by drowning incurable patients in the Ganges