Kant's Ethical Theory On Euthanasia

Tracy Latimer was killed by her father on October 24th, 1993. He was charged with second-degree murder after a series of trials and appeals. Robert Latimer had been motivated by concern for the suffering of her daughter, who had severe mental and physical disabilities, and by love. This case leads to a national disagreement on euthanasia. It is one of many cases about euthanasia. Should it be a legitimate right? This paper is going to explain the reason why I think euthanasia ought not to be legal. The first premise will argue that voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope. Then, the position of Immanuel Kant towards euthanasia will be discussed in the last postulate.

Euthanasia is a controversial topic regarding whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be further legalized. Euthanasia is the act of a medical doctor injecting a poison into a patient 's body in order to kill them. Some argue that euthanasia should be legalized to put people out of pain and misery. However, others argue that some people with terminal illnesses would do anything to live longer and believe that it is a selfish and cowardly act. Euthanasia is disputable because of the various ethical issues, including, but not limited to: murder and suicide illegality, the Hippocratic Oath, and medical alternatives. As someone who has had many traumatic experiences and who wants to become a doctor, I am very passionate about the well-being of my future patients and the responsibility to do no harm to them. For these lawful, logical, and personal reasons, euthanasia should not be legalized.

Kant 's explanation should determine where non-voluntary active euthanasia falls on that spectrum. Morally permissible looks at what is allowed by people from a moral perspective. This differs in a different place. In the UK, euthanasia, in general, is moral. It can be broken down using Kant’s theory by saying, “why has the doctor performed non-voluntary active euthanasia, or why will the doctor perform non-voluntary active euthanasia?”. By applying Kant’s theory, a doctor performing this duty is doing so morally. A patient ridden with dementia, cannot make medical decisions. The doctor has performed this procedure because of medical obligation. The doctor will perform the procedure because of the condition of the patient. It is permissible morally because the patient himself cannot deny the obligation the doctor should perform the procedure based on the patient’s condition. For the sake of the doctor’s duty, he or she is obeying moral law based on the virtue of his or her morality.

Thesis: When it comes to the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS), some experts believe that an individual should have the option of ending their life in the event that they have been given six months to live with a terminal illness or when the quality of their life has been vastly changed. Where this argument usually ends, however, is on the question whether physician-assisted suicide is medically ethical, would be overly abused to the point where doctors might start killing patients without their consent. Whereas some experts are convinced that just improving palliative care would decrease the need for someone to want to end their life before it happened naturally.

Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.

Physician assisted suicide should be morally permissible. Patients who are in constant suffering and pain have the right to end their misery at their own discretion. This paper will explore my thesis, open the floor to counter arguments, explain my objections to the counter arguments, and finally end with my conclusion. I agree with Brock when he states that the two ethical values, self-determination and individual well-being, are the focal points for the argument of the ethical permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia (or physician assisted suicide). These two values are what drives the acceptability of physician assisted suicide because it is the patients who choose their treatment options and how they want to be medically treated. Patients are physically and emotionally aware when they are dying and in severe pain, therefore they can make the decision to end the suffering through the option of physician assisted suicide.

Thanks to modern developments in medical technology, people in advanced countries today live longer and stay healthy until they are relatively older. The technology, however, also allows some people to hasten their death and make it relatively pain-free. As a result, many patients suffering from unbearable pain of certain incurable illnesses from time to time ask their physicians to help them commit suicide. Any physician who is asked to do this is under an ethical dilemma. On the one hand, the physician is asked to help relieve one from pain and suffering. On the other hand, by helping a patient commit suicide the physician is assisting someone to commit murder even if it is the case of self-murder. This ethical case known as Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) is a controversial topic in the United States and elsewhere. Since it is an ethical issue, one way of resolving the dilemma is to evaluate the morality of PAS from the perspective of classical and other ethical theories. Among these are utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, relativism, emotivism, and ethical egoism. With the exception of deontology, any of these theories can be used to justify PAS easily. Deontology is the only view that places strong moral limitations on the application of PAS. Deontology's most prominent proponent Immanuel Kant strongly opposed suicide. However, the core principles of deontology may justify physician-assisted suicide

There are a few different forms of physician-assisted death, such as active, passive, and assisted suicide. To some people they may mean the same thing but in reality, they are quite different. Active euthanasia is when a physician physically injects the patient with a drug that ends their live or in some way is the direct result of the patient’s death. Passive euthanasia is the result of something taken away from the patient that results in their death, such as removing a breathing tube or stopping treatment. Physician assisted suicide is the result of lethal medication given to the patient for them to take on their own time when they are ready to end their life. Some people see these different forms as being the same while others see them as being different. There are four ethical principles that become involved in conflict with these forms of euthanasia. These principles are beneficence, autonomy, non-maleficence, and justice, which act against each other sometimes in the cases of euthanasia. Beneficence is the duty of the physician to have the welfare of the patient is their first concern. This principle sometime goes against euthanasia because of the fact the physicians are stopping treatment, which results in the death of the patient. Many argue this act is the result of not thinking of the patient’s welfare. Another principle is autonomy, according to Steve Pantilat, “Autonomous individuals act intentionally, with understanding, and without controlling influences”

Active euthanasia should be permitted as a medical treatment to allow people the right to die with dignity without pain and in peace. Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide or mercy killing, takes on many different forms. When most Americans think of euthanasia, they think of a specific form that is referred to as “active euthanasia” which means to actively do something that will end a patient’s life with or without that individual’s consent. When euthanasia is performed in an involuntary manner it is usually because the patient is comatose, unconscious, or otherwise unable to communicate whether or not they want to have their life prolonged through artificial means. In such cases, the physician makes an

According to Iain Brassington, Kant’s categorical imperative does not apply to euthanasia, aid-in-dying, or any end-of-life issue. He states that if the categorical imperative applied here – if there really was a contradiction in the natural laws of the universe whenever someone decided to commit suicide – then it would be exceedingly difficult to do. As he puts it, “The currency of impermissibility rests on possibility. If suicide is possible, then either it must be compatible with the laws of nature that

I am going to apply the theory of Kant’s Deontology to the case regarding assisted suicide for psychological suffering.

Once the consequentialist discussed his concerns and philosophy about the thought provoking matter, the deontologist stands from the bench, pulls out his wallet, and shares a prized picture of Immanuel Kant. While the consequentialist and virtue ethicist look over the photo, the deontologist begins with, “(I)f I were Immanuel Kant, here is what I would have to say about the topic of euthanasia”, “suicide and asking for euthanasia do not show respect for our own rationality; they do not treat it as an end in itself” (Lacewing, n.d., p.3). The deontologist goes on to communicate about his philosophy, we all have a perfect duty to not kill, not deceive, and keep promises. These are the responsibility of deontology. Therefore, we all must stay

Kantian’s would disagree with “Mercy killing”, because they are lawful abiding citizens that value absolute duty to the laws, therefore; lying and especially killing is not acceptable to them because it is taking the life of someone else and they would view it as murdering them. It would set new precedence and new behaviors that murdering is okay, creating a new universal law. Because whatever you do or however you act, creates a new universal law. Even the golden rule fails here, because if we ask the question, what if everyone did that? It would lead to catastrophe because everyone would be killing everyone. Although, Kantian’s do believe killing is immoral, and wrong, and are against Mercy killing, Kant’s Lex talionis rule, an eye for an

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.

In the case of Frank Van Den Bleeken, a male described as an irrepressible rapist asked to undergo physician assisted suicide in order to end his life. Since Van Den Bleeken was living his psychologically unbearable sentence in Belgium, physician assisted suicide was an impending option, as it had been made legal in the country back in 2002 (Krugel, 2016). Through ethical analysis, Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill’s would reach an agreement in which Van Den Bleeken should be restricted from his right to physician assisted suicide. The three philosophers have varying epistemological thought processes on determining what is ethical and moral but whether it is the individual’s duty to stay in