Biomedical Ethics: Euthanasia. One Way

¶ … biomedical ethics: euthanasia. One way of interpreting euthanasia from a moral point-of-view is utilitarianism.

Utilitarians interpret the rightness or wrongness of an action based on its consequences alone, this being one of the reasons why utilitarianism has been considered a consequential theory. However, at the same time, such an assumption, of judging actions mainly on taking into consideration the consequences has been considered a limitation and a weak point in this theory. Utilitarianism is based on the principle that we ought to do the greatest good for the greatest number of persons involved (the person requesting euthanasia, dependents, relatives, health care providers, or society). In the case of incurable disease, like cancer for instance, utilitarianism may be a way of providing ethical decision-making. From such a perspective, many patients probably consider that the greatest good for all people involved is their own death. Death implies absence of pain for the patient, and absence of suffering and concern, work and assistance in the relatives. Euthanasia is favored in detriment of a life enmeshed in incurable and fatal physical suffering.

However, when considered closely the problem is extremely complex. Richard Gula (1991) thinks that it is more difficult from a moral standpoint to justify letting somebody die a slow and hard death, dehumanized, than it is to justify helping him to escape from such misery. At a first glance, the main assumption of utilitarianism that preaches the greatest good for the greatest number seems the right decision. According to Maguire (cited in Gula, 1991), however, physical life is not the greatest or absolute value and death is not the absolute evil. There are other values that transcend physical life, such as personal integrity, human dignity, and the freedom to determine the direction of one's life according to one's convictions. Therefore, the persons in cause have the right to decide for themselves when their life should end. When a person considers that personality is extinguished there is no reason to preserve biological life, since integrity, human dignity and freedom require and suggest the right to make a decision concerning life and death. Such choice proves a relief to relatives and family and makes possible a reallocation of medical resources.