Euthanasia: Ethical Dilemmas, Deontology, and Religious Views

This essay delves into the complex ethical issues surrounding euthanasia, exploring its definition, rationale, and the factors influencing its application. It examines the deontological approach, particularly the views of Immanuel Kant, and contrasts it with utilitarian perspectives. The essay discusses the moral permissibility of euthanasia, considering both active and passive forms, as well as voluntary and non-voluntary scenarios. It highlights the significance of religious beliefs and their influence on ethical stances, emphasizing that euthanasia is often viewed as morally wrong due to its contradiction of the sanctity of life. The essay concludes by advocating for further research into more ethical methods of caring for terminally ill patients, referencing the importance of respecting individual autonomy while considering societal and legal constraints.

Euthanasia 1
Euthanasia
By (Student’s Name)
Name of the course
Instructor’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Department
Date

Euthanasia 2
Rationale
Euthanasia refers to the deliberate action of ending a person’s life with the aim of
reducing pain and suffering (Nathan, 2015). This applies mostly to the terminally ill patients.
After a series of professional observations and tests, a doctor may determine that it is
impossible for the patient to heal even if the best possible care was to be offered. It is in such
circumstances that euthanasia may be applied. There are certain factors that must be met
before it is applied. One of these is that the patient and their caregivers must consent. The
other factor is that carrying out such a procedure must be permitted by law. If it is prohibited,
then it cannot be done even if the patient consents.
There are several reasons why euthanasia is an ethical issue. First, human life is
treated with outmost respect in most societies. It is therefore regarded as morally wrong to
intentionally end someone’s life. Doing such a thing is considered as murder. The second
reason why euthanasia is an ethical issue is because it involves consent from the patient. This
means that it is the patient who makes a deliberate decision to end their life so that pain and
suffering may reduce. Therefore, the society and the health professionals may be in a
dilemma whether to obey the societal moral or respect an individual’s autonomy (Shepperd
2016).
Deontological approach may be applied to this case. The approach was developed by
Immanuel Kant and argues that human behaviour should be based on the duty to uphold
moral principles (Mihailov, 2016). This approach refutes the utilitarian approach which
argues that behaviour should be based on consequences. If the deontological approach were
to be applied in the issue of euthanasia, it would then the practice would be morally wrong.
The deontological approach insists on the importance on judging the morality of actions

Euthanasia 3
rather than the consequences of the action. Since it is morally wrong to kill, deontologists
would conclude that euthanasia is not good practice and should not be carried out.
Diary Entry 1
Decisions regarding euthanasia are very difficult to make. This is because they
surround an issue that all human beings will eventually face, that is, death. It is worth noting
that in most cases of euthanasia, it is the patient who decides to end their life (Keown, 2018).
This makes the topic of euthanasia controversial since death is generally treated as a bad
thing by the society. As an ethicist, it is necessary to respect the autonomy of an individual.
However, in such a controversial issue there are some factors that must be considered even if
the autonomy is to be respected. One of these is whether or not it is morally right to kill. The
answer is that it is morally wrong to intentionally end someone’s life (Halpern, 2015).
Therefore, euthanasia is not morally permissible. In addition to this, most countries have not
yet legalised euthanasia. In such countries, it is illegal to carry out euthanasia.
Diary Entry 2
Most people of the world subscribe to a religion. It is important to consider this when
discussing the topic of euthanasia. This is because, the teachings or various religions are
important in influencing how people live (VanderWeele, Balboni and Koh 2017). Most
religions treat human life as sacred. Due to this, it should be treated with outmost dignity. Let
us take an example with catechism. These are religious principles and teachings that
Christians observe. Christianity teaches that human life is dignified and every person should
endeavour to respect it. Due to this, any practices that do not show dignity to human life are
not permitted. These include such practices as euthanasia and abortion. Therefore, on the
basis of religion, euthanasia is wrong and should not be carried out (VanderWeele, Balboni
and Koh, 2017). As an ethicist, it is important to ensure that the religious values that people

Euthanasia 4
uphold are respected. Although most scientists do not believe in a higher being or subscribe
to any religion, it would not be reasonable to ignore the fact that most people of the world are
religious.
Diary Entry 3
When discussing euthanasia, it is important to note that there are two main types of
euthanasia. These are active or passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia refers to a situation
where the process involves medical intervention while passive euthanasia on the other hand
refers to withdrawing treatment with the intention of facilitating a faster dying process
(Paterson 2017). From a deontological approach, both are not morally permissible. This is
because both actions are aimed at ending the life of a person. According to deontological
approach to ethics, that amounts to purposefully killing a person and therefore wrong. It is
also worth noting that there are two main classifications of euthanasia. These are voluntary
and nob-voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is one in which a client makes a
conscious decision to die and asks for help from the health professionals to do so. Non-
voluntary euthanasia refers to a situation where a patient is not able to make this decision by
themselves. It is therefore made by the caregivers. This may be because the patient is in a
comma or very ill. Whether, voluntary or non-voluntary, euthanasia is ethically and morally
wrong since is involves a deliberate action of killing a patient (Kirchhoff et al 2015).
Diary Entry 4
Kant’s deontological approach to ethics argues that it is the duty of every person to
ensure that their actions are morally right. The theory emphasizes that it would be wrong to
judge the morality of an action by the consequences alone. This is because we may not
always be sure of what the consequences will be. In the case of euthanasia, if it is only the
consequences that were to be considered, then it would be argued that the pain and suffering

Euthanasia 5
would be reduced. Therefore, euthanasia would be considered right. In the case of
deontological ethics however, it is important to investigate the moral permissibility of an
action. It is not morally permissible to intentionally end a person’s life. Therefore, it can be
concluded that euthanasia is ethically and morally wrong. According to Dunn and Hope
(2018), it would be important for more research to be carried out to determine more ethical
ways of dealing with terminally ill patients.

Euthanasia 6
Reference
Dunn, M. and Hope, T., 2018. Medical ethics: a very short introduction. 2nd ed. London:
Oxford University Press.
Halpern, S. D. (2015). Toward evidence-based end-of-life care. New England Journal of
Medicine, 373(21), 2001-2003.
Keown, J., 2018. Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalisation. 3rd
ed. London: Cambridge University Press.
Kirchhoff, K. T., Hammes, B. J., Kehl, K. A., Briggs, L. A., & Brown, R. L. (2015). Effect of
a disease‐specific advance care planning intervention on end‐of‐life care. Journal of the
American Geriatrics Society, 60(5), 946-950.
Mihailov, E., 2016. Is deontology a moral confabulation? 3rd ed. New York Routledge.
Nathan, R., 2015. Is Euthanasia Morally Permissible? Why or Why Not? 2nd ed. New York:
Routledge.
Paterson, C., 2017. Assisted suicide and euthanasia: a natural law ethics approach. 2nd ed.
New York: Routledge.
Shepperd, S., Gonçalves‐Bradley, D. C., Straus, S. E., & Wee, B. (2016). Hospital at home:
home‐based end‐of‐life care. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2), 7-21.
VanderWeele, T.J., Balboni, T.A. and Koh, H.K., 2017. Health and spirituality. 3rd ed. New
York: Routledge.