Mill's Argument Against Euthanasia

Euthanasia has been a controversial debate for a long time, whether it is deemed to be moral or not, or if the practice should be legalized. There have been several perspectives on this topic ranging from health care providers, to the patients themselves. Euthanasia is “the termination of a very sick person’s life in order to relieve them of their suffering.” (BBC, 2014). The person who usually undergoes euthanasia, is either in critical or incurable conditions, and there are some patients who want to end their lives (BBC, 2014). In this essay I will be assessing the disputed issue of euthanasia on utilitarianism grounds. My main claim is that euthanasia should be permitted to those who wish to end their lives, as the fundamental utilitarian

The fundamental utilitarian moral principle is ‘actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Moral Philosophy, 158). In other words, if the action if good, then that principle of what is right will naturally follow. In relation to euthanasia, if the action of ending someone’s life is good for them because it relieves them of their suffering, then it is deemed to be morally correct because they are no longer in pain, thus, being the right. Happiness in other words, is more pleasure and less pain. If a person is in less pain because they received medical assistance to end their life, they will inevitably feel pleasure out of this. It is not just a feeling, but, a proportion. Mill continues to speak on the Eudaimonia concept. He addresses human beings, and what constitutes as human pleasure. There is no way to get at another reason as to why pleasure would be intrinsically valuable and good, but the end of human action is the standard morality. Happiness differs from contentment, because not all pleasures are equally desirable or equally valuable. For example, a person is not granted their wish to die, and this is considered good because it maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people. These people, being family or friends of the

If an action of death, promotes the best interest of the patient, the people concerned, and has violated no one rights, then the action is deemed morally acceptable (BBC, 2014). The patient is willingly giving up their right to live and consenting to die with the help of the health care providers, no one’s rights are being violated. So, if this action is considered good, the right that follows from it will be what happens next; their death. Every person has a right to die because they are in control of their body and their life, so they should be able to determine in which way they would like to die. If we place this restraint on patients – to take away their choice of living or not, then that is not considered right. Death is something that concerns your person, and no one else should have a right to interfere, if death is what you would like to pursue. However, it could be argued that there have been no cases in which euthanasia has promoted the best interest of everyone involved. People from this standpoint would argue that euthanasia creates harm to other people and is not a “private act” (BBC, 2014). This worry is insufficient to warrant the condemnation of the practice because as my argument demonstrates, morally right and good actions are those that promote the greatest net utility in a given situation. If a patient is terminally ill, and can no longer bare the suffering they