Kantian View Of Euthanasia

Dan W. Brock argues that patients should have the right to opt for voluntary active euthanasia because it is important to preserve individual rights and is no different from voluntary passive euthanasia. For example, Brock proposes the Greedy Son thought experiment, where there is a dying mother on an ALS respirator. Her son, worried about losing his inheritance to hospital fees, deliberately unplugs the mother and in turn, kills her. The physician, on the other hand, would also have had to unplug the mother if she opted for voluntary passive euthanasia. However, it is acceptable for the physician to unplug the patient because the physician would be respecting the patient’s wishes. The methods in which they cause death is the same. Thus, morality

The Kantian sense of autonomy is to value the patient’s capacity for self-determination while the non-Kantian sense is to value maximizing an individual’s options for acting. Although the option of euthanasia increases the number of choices and supports the non-Kantian view, autonomy is not truly enhanced because patients cannot freely make a desirable choice and thus is limited in the Kantian sense of autonomy. Having more choices may appear as though autonomy is enhanced, but it inhibits the choices available because patients can no longer live by default and now must choose to live. By removing the default, it makes some options undesirable because they can lead to societal pressure for the patients. For example, when an individual receives a dinner invitation, he or she is given the choice of accepting or not going. However, the individual now no longer has the option of being absent by default and must give a reason for the absence. While the results are both in absences, one did not require any explanations and had no social obligations while the other leaves a poor impression for not meeting the social obligation. Similarly, when a patient is given the option to opt for euthanasia, he or she is given the choice of accepting or living. However, the patient no longer has the inherent option of living and faces the social expectation that the patient must justify the continued existence. The expectations, in turn, limit the patients’ ability to independently decide. Therefore, patients should not be given the right for voluntary active euthanasia because by having more options, it creates new obligations that in turn limits the desirable choices the patient can make and infringes upon the autonomy that is so