Part 1: Ethical Question

Is Physician-Assisted Death morally and ethically wrong or right when the patient has a debilitating terminal condition?

Part 2: Introduction

In the later part of 1994, Oregon was the first state to legalize medical aid in dying, commonly referred to as Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) or Physician-Assisted Dying (PAD). According to the Death with Dignity website (2018), the implementation of the Act was not until 1997 due to court challenges and injunctions (Deathwithdignity.org). United States District Court judge had placed a temporary restraining order against the act, eventually leading to an injunction. In February of 1997, the Ninth Circuit Court orders the injunction to be lifted. The topic faded out of public view until the early part of 2014 when Brittany Maynard was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer and opened her private life to the public.

Physician-assisted dying is one of the most controversial legal and ethical issues today. When it comes to physician-assisted death, there is no black and white answer.

Ethical issues tend to arise when we have to make a decision of what is right or wrong. The way we think about physician-assisted death depends solely on personal beliefs and morals. Throughout this topic, we will be examining the question from the utilitarian viewpoint to find a solution to the ethical dilemma hopefully.

John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher and economist of the 19^th century. Mill’s father, James Mill, worked closely with Jeremy Bentham developing the utilitarian theory. After a mental breakdown and a spat of depression, John re-evaluates his views about utilitarianism. The website, The Biography.com (2014), dictated that John started to focus on the positive outcomes of the utilitarian philosophy and evolve into a more natural sentiment that exists within human beings’ social nature (www.thebiography.com). Mill was able to discuss the good and evil of human nature and our fascination with them and was able to create a criterion for universal morality.

Utilitarian (2018) theory is the morally right actions, laws, or policies are those whose consequences have the most significant positive value and least negative value compared to available alternatives (section 3.2). Utilitarianism looks at the outcome of a situation and determines if the majority involved happiness outweighs the minority pain when happiness or pleasure is the majority outcome than the action would be moral. If the pain impacts the greater good, than it would be considered immoral.

Utilitarianism has three main principles that are: the only thing that genuinely has intrinsic value is pleasure or happiness, actions are moral as they promote happiness- immoral if they produce unhappiness, and everyone’s happiness counts equally.

Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the number of good things and decrease the bad.

Utilitarianism follows the highest happiness principle for the most significant number. Physician-assisted death will end the suffering of the patient, but the family would incur great pain and misery. Since the family would incur such pain, a utilitarian would consider such actions as immoral or wrong. The loss of a loved one is devastating and impacts all who knew the patient. The qualitative and quantitative experience of pain is a more significant negative consequence of physician-assisted death. Yes, the pain and suffering of the patient would end and the patient in a way would be happy but is not enough to make the action morally correct. Physician-assisted death from the utilitarian aspect is immoral.