Ethics in Social Sciences: Euthanasia Dilemmas and Ethical Theories

This essay delves into the complex ethical considerations surrounding euthanasia, using a case study approach. It identifies the ethical dilemmas faced by the husband of a terminally ill woman considering euthanasia, and analyzes these dilemmas through the lenses of Rule Utilitarianism and Kant's Duty Ethics Theory. The essay critically examines both theories, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses in the context of euthanasia. Ultimately, synthesizing the arguments from both theories, the essay concludes that assisting in euthanasia is not ethical, prioritizing the inherent value of human life as emphasized by Kant's Duty Ethics. The essay offers a comprehensive ethical analysis of euthanasia, providing a well-reasoned solution to the presented dilemma.

Running head: ETHICS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE
Ethics in Social Science
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1ETHICS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
Discussion........................................................................................................................................2
Ethical Analysis and Dilemmas...................................................................................................2
Application of Theories related to Euthanasia.............................................................................4
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................6
References........................................................................................................................................7

2ETHICS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE
Topic: Euthanasia
Introduction
The report addressees the cases study with the topic Euthanasia, which is the practice of
intentionally ending or terminating a life in order to provide relive a sick person from his or her
pain or sufferings (Cohen et al. 2014). The paper analyzes the case study related to Euthanasia
and identifies the dilemmas associated with the case study and also ethically analyzes the
dilemmas. The paper also identifies two theories that include Rule Utilitarianism and Kant’s
Theory, which are related to the topic. These two theories are analyzed and all the components of
these theories framework are applied, that includes the strengths and weakness of these
theories .The paper also provides the feasible and ethical solution to the dilemma associated with
the topic of the case study, Euthanasia synthesizing the main arguments that have been made
throughout the paper .
Discussion
Ethical Analysis and Dilemmas
In this case study, it has been observed that a lady has been suffering from a incurable
disease and she is on the brink of dying within weeks. The husband of the lady, who has spent 40
years with her, is compelled to see the sufferings and the agonies which his life partner has to go
through every day. The woman has been provided with all ranges of medications in order to heal
her ailment, which included anti-depressants, painkillers and others but to no avail. The husband
of the lady is well aware of the fact that the lady desires to die with dignity as she is suffering a
lot and not able to bear the pain due to the terminal illness. However, the lady is physically not in

3ETHICS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE
the position that actively give consent to facilitate her death in a painless manner. Both the lady
and her husband are well aware of the legal consequence that would arise if the husband aids her
to die painlessly. The life partner of the lady or her husband is in a ethical dilemma whether to
assist his partner’s death with minimal distress or wait for the ultimate consequence of death of
her partner bearing all the pain and sufferings which she is undergoing (Azize 2007).
The case study depicts the case of euthanasia , where the husband of a sick woman is
under the dilemma of whether to aid her to die with minimal distress or to let her suffer bearing
all the pain until she dies naturally .In Australia majority of the population gave positive
response and reviews for Euthanasia . However, both the lady and her husband are convinced
that there would be legal consequences if the husband of the suffering woman follows euthanasia
(Cholbi and Varelius 2015). Euthanasia is legal in Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg
whereas the Physically Assisted suicide or PAS in the Washington State in the United States. In
Australia , the legislation regarding Euthanasia is different in different states of Australia
(Stackpoole, White and Willmott 2016). In the year 1995 the northern territory of Australia
passed the legislation which allowed the practice of Euthanasia , however this was disallowed by
the Federal Parliament of Australia in the year 19997 .The practice of Euthanasia raises several
number of moral dilemmas :
 Is it ethically right to end or terminate the life of a terminally ill patient who is
suffering from severe pain and distress?
 What the circumstances or the instances when the practice of Euthanasia can be
justifiable, if it is at all justifiable?
 What is the moral difference between killing someone and allowing them to die a
miserable death?

4ETHICS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE
Application of Theories related to Euthanasia
The two theories that would be used for critically analyzing the topic of Euthanasia
related to the case study include the Rule Utilitarianism theory and the Kant’s Duty Ethics
Theory. The Kant’s Duty Ethics Theory is an example of a deontological theory or deontological
ethics (O'Neill 2013). The German philosopher Emmanuel Kant conceived the Kant Theory. The
Kant Duty Ethics theory states that the rightness or the wrongness of any particular actions does
not depend on their outcomes or consequences but it is important to know whether these actions
fulfill the duty . According to the Kant’s Duty Ethics theory , the act of killing someone or
helping them to kill themselves , which is followed in the practice of Euthanasia, is wrong
irrespective of the consequences of outcomes . The Kant Duty Ethics Theory states that the
practice of Euthanasia should not be legalized or encouraged irrespective of the severity of the
situation (Sjöstrand, Helgesson, Eriksson and Juth 2013). The theory states that the man being a
rational being , does not possess the authority to formulate a rule of conduct that he or she can
take their lives or give the right to the doctors or family members to take their life. So if we
consider the case study here and apply the Kant’s Theory of Duty Ethics, it can be said that the
husband or the life partner of the patient suffering from terminal illness should not judge it is
right or wrong to follow euthanasia and end the life of his partner considering the outcome of
severe pain and suffering of his partner as it is against morality. The strength of the Kant’s Duty
Ethics Theory is that this theory focuses on the humanity of the people and ultimate importance
of their lives and it concludes that Euthanasia is morally wrong (Nisan and Kurtines 2013). The
weakness of Kant’s Theory is that it is not very practical because if the human beings were
treated with intrinsic value, a dignified death, which is provided by Euthanasia, would be better.
The other weakness of this theory is that is very rigid as there may be situations which demands

5ETHICS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE
compassion for making practical decisions as in the case of Euthanasia but there is no room for
compassion in the Kant’s Duty Ethics Theory . Utilitarianism is the one of the most influential as
well as the one of the most effective moral theories (Mill 2016). The Rule Utilitarianism is a type
or form of Utilitarianism, which states that an action is right as it complies with a rule, which
leads to good (Mulgan 2015). It is claimed by the Rule Utilitarianism that the best and the most
effective means of creation of greater good of humanity is through a moral code where the rules
of the conduct is clearly understood . According to Rule Utilitarianism, it is morally allowed or
permissible if the rules, which have the highest utility, allow it (Nathanson 2014). In this case,
scenario of Euthanasia, the theory of Rule Utilitarianism will comply with the same framework
as it does in case of morality (Hooker 2013). It states that if the consequence of following the
practice of Euthanasia is have good consequence, which is in the case scenario where the patient
would be able to die with dignity if euthanasia is followed, this morally allowed in Rule
Utilitarianism. The Rule Utilitarianism also emphasizes the fact that it should comply with the
laws, which should allow the practice of Euthanasia. The weakness of the Rule Utilitarianism
Theory is that it emphasizes on the achievement of greatest happiness but it is very difficult to
define what is meant by happiness in this case scenario of Euthanasia. The strength of the theory
of Rule Utilitarianism is that it does not have to worry about the consequence of each act to
figure what is right. It emphasizes on the rules that creates greatest happiness , in this case , if
husband of the patient follows the practice of euthanasia , the patient can die with minimal
distress , which would lead to “greatest happiness “ (Tobia 2013).

6ETHICS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE
Conclusion
After studying and analyzing the various aspects of the two theories applicable to the
provided case scenario of Euthanasia, the possible solution to the dilemma faced by the husband
of the patient has been identified. It is not ethical for the life partner of the patient to assist her to
die with minimal distress as there is no justification whatsoever to terminate or end the life of a
human being regardless of the circumstances. This solution to the existing dilemma encountered
in the case scenario is strengthened by Kant’s Duty Ethics Theory, which emphasizes on the
humanity of the people and gives ultimate importance to their lives and thus it suggests that the
practice of Euthanasia is morally wrong. Therefore, it can be conclude that the dilemma
identified from the case study is solved and it is not ethical for the life partner of the patient
suffering from terminal illness regardless of her pain and sufferings.

7ETHICS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE
References
Azize, J 2007, ‘Human Dignity and Euthanasia Law’, University Notre Dame Australian Law
Review, vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 47-74
Cholbi, M and Varelius, J, 2015, New Directions in the Ethics of Assisted Suicide and
Euthanasia, Springer International Publishing
Cohen, J., Van Landeghem, P., Carpentier, N. and Deliens, L., 2014. Public acceptance of
euthanasia in Europe: a survey study in 47 countries. International journal of public
health, 59(1), pp.143-156.
Hooker, B 2013, ‘Rule-Utilitarianism and Euthanasia’, in Lafollette, H (ed.), Ethics in Practice:
An Anthology, Wiley & Sons
Mill, J.S., 2016. Utilitarianism. In Seven Masterpieces of Philosophy (pp. 337-383). Routledge.
Mulgan, T., 2015. Utilitarianism for a broken world. Utilitas, 27(1), pp.92-114.
Nathanson, S., 2014. Utilitarianism, act and rule.
Nisan, M. and Kurtines, W., 2013. The moral balance model: Theory and research extending our
understanding of moral choice and deviation. Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development
Application, pp.213-249.
O'Neill, O., 2013. Acting on principle: An essay on Kantian ethics. Cambridge University Press.

8ETHICS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE
Sjöstrand, M., Helgesson, G., Eriksson, S. and Juth, N., 2013. Autonomy-based arguments
against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: a critique. Medicine, Health Care and
Philosophy, 16(2), pp.225-230.
Stackpoole, C, White, B, and Willmott, L 2016, ‘(Failed) voluntary euthanasia law reform in
Australia: two decades of trends, models and politics’. University of New South Wales Law
Journal, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 1-46
Tobia, K., 2013. Rule Consequentialism and the Problem of Partial Acceptance. Ethical theory
and moral practice, 16(3), pp.643-652.