Ethics of Euthanasia: Analysis and Argument Paper - HEA 4303

This paper, written for HEA 4303 at the University of Houston Downtown, examines the ethics of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. It begins by defining euthanasia and differentiating between voluntary and involuntary forms. The paper then presents arguments for and against the legalization of euthanasia in the US, exploring utilitarian and Kantian ethical approaches. It discusses the utilitarian perspective, which considers maximizing happiness, and the Kantian perspective, which opposes euthanasia as a violation of the right to life. The paper references the Supreme Court case Washington vs. Gluckberg, which ruled against a constitutional right to euthanasia, and highlights objections to euthanasia based on religious and secular viewpoints. The author concludes that, despite potential justifications, the practice of euthanasia could be misused. The paper uses several sources to support its arguments. This assignment provides a comprehensive overview of the ethical considerations surrounding euthanasia.

Running head: ETHICS OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATION
0
ETHICS OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATION
Name of the Student:
Name of the university:
Author’s note:

1ETHICS OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATION
Euthanasia is an act of any physician to end the life of an individual at the request and
consent of that individual (Keown, 2018). In physician-assisted suicide (PAS), the human being
has consumed the lethal substance which has been prescribed by the physician. The term
euthanasia and assisted suicide have been legalized in various states of the United States
(Emanuel, 2017). However, there are several safeguards and laws for the protection of abusing or
misusing these practices. There are two types of euthanasia, such as voluntary and involuntary.
In the involuntary euthanasia, the person who is dying has been made for requesting such
hastened death. In the voluntary euthanasia, the person seeks to his physician to end his life to
give relief from pain. Voluntary euthanasia may be passive as well as active. This active
voluntary euthanasia may be physician-assisted suicide (Emanuel et al., 2016). This paper will
analyze why such euthanasia should not be legalized in the territory of the US.
According to the Utilitarian ethical approach regarding the question of the legacy of the
euthanasia, the government should allow the euthanasia when specific conditions have fulfilled
during this activity. The scholars who have believed the utilitarian approach, do not follow any
divine order (Jordan, 2017). According to this approach, it is the only right thing that the greatest
pleasure for the highest quantity of people engaged in that matter. Tara Mapes in her article
‘Ethical theories on Human Euthanasia / Mercy killing ’, has argued where such a higher
number of family members have objected the euthanasia then the Utilitarian approach may thrust
back on the members of his family of asking the maximum happiness. The death of that family
member may produce happiness to the dead person more than living. However, the Kantian
ethical approach has opposed the Utilitarian approach that euthanasia is not the right thing for
doing and it may cause an acceptable behavior of killing (Vaughn, 2015). According to this
approach, euthanasia has excluded the command of the divine and also opposed to the universal

2ETHICS OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATION
law. The Kantian approach has agreed with the retributivism and explained that euthanasia is
killing with approval of murder without any exception.
The Kantian ethical approach theory will be more appropriate for discussing the adverse
effect of the euthanasia in the community. As the right to life of a person is a fundamental right,
the right to die also can be obeyed as a fundamental right (Emeziem, 2015). However, in the case
law, Washington vs. Gluckberg 1997, the Supreme Court of the US has held that euthanasia in
the United States is not sheltered under such Due Process Clauses of Law of Land. Many people
have thought that every person has possessed the right to regulate his life as well as body and it
is their concern to determine the way how they will die. According to this idea of the scholar, the
human being may be free to die and the unnecessary restraints of human rights are the violation
of human rights (Thomas, 2015). However, there are several objections in this opinion, such as
religious and secular objections. In their opinion, they have indicated that the death of a human
being in on the hand of God (Minerva & Sandberg, 2017).
Therefore, it can be concluded that though there are several reasons for imposing the
euthanasia as a legal activity, the human being may use it in an adverse manner and an
instrument of killing another human being.

3ETHICS OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATION
References
Emanuel, E. (2017). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: focus on the data. Med J
Aust, 206(8), 339-340.
Emanuel, E. J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Urwin, J. W., & Cohen, J. (2016). Attitudes and
practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States, Canada, and
Europe. Jama, 316(1), 79-90.
Emeziem, C. (2015). A Right to Die? A Comparative Legal Philosophical Enquiry. A
Comparative Legal Philosophical Enquiry (August 27, 2015).
Jordan, M. (2017). The Ethical Considerations of Physician-assisted Suicide. Dialogue &
Nexus, 4(1), 12.
Keown, J. (2018). Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalisation.
Cambridge University Press.
Minerva, F., & Sandberg, A. (2017). Euthanasia and cryothanasia. Bioethics, 31(7), 526-533.
Thomas, Z. (2015). euthanasia—a study of Law, Policy and ethics. Journal of evidence Based
medicine and Healthcare, 2(31), 4630-4644.
Vaughn, L. (2015). Doing ethics: Moral reasoning and contemporary issues. WW Norton &
Company.
Washington vs. Gluckberg, [1997] 521 U.S. 702