Introduction

All individuals have the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Now, imagine you were the trial judged asked to deliver a verdict to an appellant wishing to end her life prematurely. Would you violate the principles of fundamental justice and allow her to suffer and die of natural causes or would you preserve the dignity and autonomy of the competent adult and allow her to take her life at the time and manner of her choosing? To consider this question, I will examine euthanasia using two basic moral principles namely Deontology and Utilitarianism. In addition to describing the two theories and their relevance to …show more content…
Immanuel Kant argued that morality must be derived from practical principles. It is based on the premise that some behaviors are morally obligatory or prohibited regardless of the benefits that may be achieved by doing or not doing them. Deontologists prohibit active or passive killing and thus euthanasia. It preaches the importance of respecting an individual’s rationality and humanity as an end to itself. He distinguished between perfect or obligatory duties that can never be breached and imperfect duties that aim at a specific outcome. Kantian ethicists believe that the intention of the act is more important than the act itself. Kant would view Euthanasia as a formula of an end in itself and an imperfect duty. He stressed that it is important to act out of a sense of duty in order to achieve the best outcome (Sober, 2005). Kant asserted that people must be treated as an end in themselves and not as means to accomplish a task. Kant’s first formulation of categorical imperative portrays man as a rational being who must act in accordance with the universal law. He also asserts that we must not act in a way that distresses other human beings in order to accomplish our task. By denying Ms. Rodriguez her appeal to take her life and in keeping with both the universal and constitutional law the court acted in accordance with the Kantian principles of morality. Kant would agree with the court’s decision to dismiss Sue Rodriguez’s …show more content…
Utilitarianism is based on a cost-benefit analysis that emphasizes only those actions that cause the greatest happiness for the greatest number should be pursued (Fisher, 2013). It was first introduced by Jeremy Bentham and then elaborated upon by John Stuart Mill. Both philosophers believed that people seek pleasure and avoid pain. Since, euthanasia will increase the happiness of those seeking it and decrease their pain at the same time, it is considered morally correct in a utilitarian perspective. Utilitarian’s also believe that an individual has complete sovereign over their body and that their autonomy must be respected. If a utilitarian was presiding in the court Sue Rodriguez appealed in, she most likely would have been granted the right to take her life in a manner and time of her choosing. This decision would be based on her intellectual capability and her awareness of the consequences. She demonstrated a solid understanding of her reasons to choose to end her life and should therefore have been allowed to violate the law in this instance. The benefit she would have received from choosing her own terms greatly outweighs the consequences of living a life of dependency. Therefore, the utilitarian would allow Ms. Rodriguez to take her life since it would provide the