Problems With The Doctrine Of Double Effect

In this essay I will analyze James Rachel’s Smith and Jones case for active and passive euthanasia. I will additionally give an ethical reasoning for why I either agreed or disagreed with his opinion. I will furthermore show how he lures our attention to the dissimilarities amongst his view of killing and allowing someone to die. I will also refine my propositions and reaction of this case in the issue of active and passive euthanasia. Defending Rachel’s case I will argue why I sided with him for his moral argument.

An unfortunate truth about mankind is that there are many ways in which we cause harm to one another. Sometimes we even end the life of another human being. These killings are known as homicide. “Homicide” means something such as justifiable homicide, manslaughter, and murder (Denotative, definition by subclass). Murder, when considered in a legal context, is a type of killing motivated by malicious intent (Precising, genus and difference definition).

More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their

“Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die?” – James Rachels. At the end of the disagreement, many philosophers say euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is a compassionate method of death. At the other side are the opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this technique as a form of murder. In this paper, I will show that it is not important to know the distinction between killing and letting die on request which is performed by a physician. Both killing and letting die on request are similar because it is based on the controversial issue called euthanasia also known as physician-assisted suicide.

After considering the system of utilitarianism, it is important to take a close look at the roots and depth of euthanasia as it has infiltrated our society. This will include an in-depth look at the overall idea of euthanasia, a history of the laws that have defined euthanasia, a specific case of euthanasia, and how the decision-making system of utilitarianism can be applied to a specific ethical communicative issue within.

“When we talk about euthanasia we are talking about a death understood as a good or happy event for the one who dies” (Foot 2002 [1972]:34).

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.

Utilitarianism attempts to consider the interests of others. However, when focusing on happiness, we fail to consider aspects such as rights and justice (EMP 115). When taking into consideration someone who is wanting to perform a deliberate suicide, overall happiness should not be the only issue to consider. This does not seem plausible since, if happiness is the only factor, anyone could justify any case of Euthanasia on grounds that they were unhappy and the world would be a better place without them. Doctors would be able to justify assisted suicide, which could quickly lead down a slippery slope where anyone who wanted to end their life would be able to do so at any time. Utilitarianism considers the feelings of others, correlating with the minimum concept of morality, which states that we take all individuals involved, into account. However, this theory considers everyone’s happiness equally important, which would take away, the intimacy and bonding from those we have close relationships with, as their happiness is no more important than the stranger walking down the street (EMP 116). Utilitarianism poses a strong theory, however it fails to address moral issues based on reason, as their only consideration for moral issues is the overall happiness achieved.

In J. Gay-Williams’ piece “The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia”, he begins by asserting that euthanasia is gaining popularity within our society, then defines euthanasia, and finally offers retributions as to why euthanasia is neither morally nor practically right. According to Gay-Williams, “euthanasia is intentionally taking the life of a presumably hopeless person” (Gay-Williams 1979, 278). Based off aspects of his definition, Gay-Williams formats his three main arguments against active euthanasia which stem from nature, self-interest, and practical effects. Out of the three proposed arguments, the argument from nature stands out personally, as the least sound. Briefly stated, this argument is not sound because it fails to offer distinction

There are times when doing the right thing can lead to bad consequences. For example, if your family is about to be killed by a criminal and the only thing you can do to protect your family from being murdered is to kill the person who is threatening them, you would feel it necessary to commit an evil in order to prevent a greater misfortune. On the other hand, the actor in cases such as this faces a moral dilemma of having to kill someone. This is where the Doctrine of Double Effect comes into play. The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) is a principal which aims to provide specific guidelines for determining when it is morally permissible to perform an action in the pursuit of a positive outcome with the full knowledge that the action will also bring about an evil consequence. (Solomon, 2014). Although the Doctrine of Double Effect is viewed as a positive theory by man, it is unjust in that it gives people a justification to commit heinous acts if they merely claim that they intended some sort of good outcome to result from their actions.

Scanlon explores the ethical significance of the intentions and motives with which people act. According to Scanlon, these intentions and motives do not have any direct bearing on the permissibility of the act. Thus, Scanlon claims that the traditional Doctrine of Double Effect is mistaken. However, the way in which someone is motivated to act has

The deliberate act of ending another 's life, given his or her consent, is formally referred to as euthanasia. At present, euthanasia is one of the most controversial social-ethical issues that we face, in that it deals with a sensitive subject matter where there is much uncertainty as to what position one ought to take. Deliberately killing another person is presumed by most rational people as a fundamental evil act. However, when that person gives his or her consent to do so, this seems to give rise to an exceptional case. This can be illustrated in the most common case of euthanasia, where the person who is willing to die suffers from an illness that causes great pain, and will result in his or her demise in the not-so-distant future.

The meaning of double of effect can be quite controversial. The principle of double effect teaches that one might perform a good action even if foreseen that a bad effect might occur (Becker, n.d). However, this is based on four principles which involves that the action has to be good itself, that the bad result was not directly intended, that the good result is not a direct casual result from the bad result, and that the good result is proportionate to the bad result (Becker, n.d). In this case of the pregnant patient with uterus cancer, from a deontologist perspective, it would be the duty of the doctor to try to save both lives but in case where it is impossible to save both lives, the doctor would save the live that could be saved and that

The lack of consensus; thereof, in American society on the ethical question of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide could be attributed solely to the incredibly complexity and gravity of the issue. Therefore, in this study I will suggest, explore, and discuss that part of the ethical problem with euthanasia is under what circumstances, if any,

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.