Do terminally ill patients have the right voluntary euthanasia? My answer is yes, since utilitarian actions look to maximize the greatest happiness for the greatest number and to minimize pain. The highest principle we should adhere to when examining voluntary euthanasia is the Greatness Happiness Principle. The Greatest Happiness Principle, which I have stated in my work Utilitarianism, says actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Additionally in government and in good behavior we want to multiple happiness. The multiplication of happiness is, according to the utilitarian ethics, the object of virtue. Voluntary euthanasia is justifiable when the action leads to the happiness of the individual and society.
Let us look at the issue of euthanasia being admissible in a utilitarian framework.
First let us define voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is defined as “the practice of ending a life in a painless manner.”(wiki). Next let me distinguish between passive and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is expediting the death of an individual by some alternative and letting nature take its course. The alternative could include turning off respirators, stopping medications, or withdrawing food and water. Active euthanasia is the direct cause of ending a life. The cause of death could be done by medication or lethal injections. For this argument I will primarily focus on active euthanasia.
Euthanasia will increase happiness and decrease pain at the same time. In active euthanasia the doctor takes an action that will cause the patient’s death. Not only is the result painless but the action itself is as well. Active euthanasia is quicker and less painful for the patient then passive. Though I do believe the result of the action should be the deciding factor in determining its justification not the action itself. The patient (who has already given consent) who has been suffering from a terminal illness is now happy to be free from the pain. By the doctor actively causing the death instead of passively watching, the result promotes utility. The result promotes utility and therefore happiness by eliminating the pain from the patient, their family, and society.
Many argue that the intentional cause of death is immoral. I argue, however, that virtues like life and liberty are desirable as means rather than ends, and that the test for determining whether a result is acceptable is the aggregated level of happiness in society. The family now has closure and can go back to their daily work lives, which promotes the happiness of society. Furthermore if a patient’s illness impacted their ability to work then their utility has ended. The patient can no longer contribute to the overall happiness to society. By keeping a terminally ill patient alive the money going towards maintaining their life is wasted. That money could be redirected towards infrastructure or research for a cure. The money going towards research could lead to a cure for a terminally ill disease. That cure would lead to the overall happiness for society. The utility of active voluntary euthanasia concerning the terminally ill allows for money to be invested elsewhere. Accumulated wealth allows for investing into research that could lead to a cure for a terminal illness. The cure for an illness leads to the greatness happiness because future patients can no longer succumb to the disease. Their potential is no longer limited and can once again contribute to society.