Ethical Theories On Human Euthanasia And Mercy Killing By Tara Mapes

Euthanasia has an incredibly controversial issue ever since a doctor advised against surgery on a physically defective child in 1915, over one hundred years ago. The child would eventually die five days later, sparking massive controversy, and emboldening other supporters of euthanasia. Often dubbed “mercy killing”, euthanasia is divided into two categories: voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. I will be focusing on voluntary euthanasia, as involuntary euthanasia is almost universally condemned, other than in capital punishment. Today, euthanasia is legal in a small number of countries, most of which are in Europe. I became interested in euthanasia after reading a Time Magazine article that stated that a majority of Americans were generally

She first analyzes euthanasia from the utilitarian approach. In utilitarianism, an action is considered moral if it maximizes total benefit and reduces suffering. Thus, if an individual is terminally ill, and a majority of family members agreed to the mercy killing, then the euthanasia is ethical. Mapes also contends that even if more family members object to the killing, “the Utilitarian…would ask what…[results] in the greatest amount of happiness. The unnecessary suffering of a family member that inevitably [results] in death [does] not produce the greatest amount of happiness.” (Mapes) Thus, the author concludes that mercy killing continues to be ethical in utilitarianism. I think that Mapes is mistaken because the first and foremost concern for the doctor should be the request of the patient, not the family members. They do not know the pain the ailment has brought upon the patient, so their opinions should be regarded as

Mapes claims that Kantians contradict themselves. To back this up, she argues that Kantian ethics opposes euthanasia because it “would result in a new acceptable behavior of murdering” (Mapes) because “its theory states whatever you do, you create a universal law.” (Mapes) She then asserts that Kantians agree with retributivism, which is “a form of vindication for the victim's family when a murderer is murdered.” (Mapes) So, at first is seems that Kantians disapprove of mercy killing because it sets a negative precedent, but then double back to say that killing is ethical is some circumstances. I agree that Kantian ethics is murky in this regard, because, clearly, Kantian ethics counters itself. It is ironic that Kantian ethics, usually one of the most unchanging and stable of the ethical viewpoints fluctuates wildly on this topic. Furthermore, I will be analyzing euthanasia from the egoist standpoint. The egoist view states that an individual’s motivation stems from that individual’s well-being. In other words, each case will be personal, without an overarching rule or code. In this standpoint, the ethicality comes down to the patient. If the patient requests for a mercy killing, then it is ethical, because in that patient’s particular case, he or she chooses to be free of his or her pain and