Peter Singer's Voluntary Euthanasia a Utilitarian Perspective

¶ … against Voluntary Euthanasia on Life Support In his essay, Voluntary Euthanasia: A Utilitarian Perspective, Peter Singer reviews ethical arguments regarding voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide from a utilitarian perspective. Thesis: Singer establishes a solid grounding for the ethicality of legalizing voluntary euthanasia by arguing that the human right to pursue their notion of the good should be respected. Also, he satisfactorily disposes of common objections to legalization by showing them to be either manageable or premature.

Explanation of Singer's Position Singer concludes that, from a utilitarian perspective, the legalization of voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide would be a desirable reform. He reasons that the objections against Euthanasia based on the availability of alternative treatments can be resolved through procedures to certify that such treatments are insufficient. He then addresses the only viable objection, that legalizing voluntary euthanasia will lead to a slippery slope of increased non-voluntary euthanasia decisions. He disposes of this final objection by pointing to empirical studies from countries that legalized voluntary euthanasia.

These studies show that its legalization in the Netherlands did not lead to increased involuntary euthanasia. Outline of Argument Singer first qualifies that there is no single utilitarian perspective on voluntary euthanasia because there are several versions of utilitarianism. The main branches of utilitarianism are be act-utilitarianism, which judges the ethics of each act on its own terms, and rule-utilitarianism, which judges the ethics of actions in accordance with the rule that produces consequences that are better than the consequences produced by any other rule.

Singer bridges the gap between these branches by defining utilitarianism as a form of Consequentialism, a philosophy which holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct. Singer highlights the primacy of Consequentialism here when he frames the issue he will argue about.

Singer clarifies that he is concerned with "…the decision to change laws to permit voluntary euthanasia, not about individual decisions to help someone to die." On the former issue, both act-utilitarians and rule-utilitarians "…will base their judgments on whether changing the law will have better consequences than not changing it." This allows Singer to speak of a single "utilitarian perspective" on euthanasia. Utilitarian Argument for Voluntary Euthanasia Singer presents the utilitarian perspective through his discussion of the good.

First, he establishes that ending the life of another, killing, is not always unethical, especially if it is done to help a person who believes living is worse than not living. For such people, death would be the good. Singer then establishes the individual's right to determine what is good. He cites utilitarian John Stuart Mill's position that "…individuals are, ultimately, the best judges and guardians of their own interests." Thus, a person who believes that death is good and desires death should have that wish respected.

Assisting a person in achieving that good, then, cannot be considered unethical. Objections to Utilitarian Argument for Voluntary Euthanasia Singer addresses Nat Hentoff's argument that many patients desiring to end their lives suffer from clinical depression, which, if treated, would remove the patients' desire to end their life. Singer points out that this is not an argument against Voluntary euthanasia, but an argument that doctors administering Euthanasia should first certify that the patient is not suffering from a treatable form of clinical depression.

He also addresses Hentoff's "Palliative Care" argument, which states that good pain relief, which many doctors are not competent at providing, can remove the desire for Euthanasia. Singer disposes of this objection by recommending a simple solution: ensure that candidates for euthanasia see a palliative care specialist. More importantly, he points out that some patients who desire Euthanasia are not in pain at all, but desire death because they are weak, tired, nauseous, or breathless.

Singer recognizes only one direct objection to voluntary euthanasia, the slippery slope argument, which is based on utilitarianism itself. The slippery slope argument posits that legalizing physician-assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia will lead to vulnerable patients being pressured into consenting to physician-assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia when they do not really want it.

Singer demonstrated that this argument was unfounded by citing a Dutch study, which showed that there was "…not any significant increase in the amount of non-voluntary euthanasia happening in the Netherlands." Analysis Assessment of Argument The most impressive feature of Singer's essay is that he did not counter objections by engaging in more philosophical speculation. Rather, he gave direct, substantial explanations for the inapplicability of these objections. He provided practical, viable solutions to the objections regarding alternative treatments instead of engaging in more philosophical speculation.

Also, he explained the prematurity of the slippery slope argument by pointing to scientific studies bearing on the assertions of that argument. Possible Objections to Argument Singer ignores one possible objection: that the legalization of voluntary euthanasia may lead to more voluntary euthanasia for financial reasons. Because medical care is.