For A-PLus Writer only

Applying Deontological Theory to Critique Physician-Assisted Suicide

Introduction

Dilemma and controversy often mar many policies and practices in the daily lives of human beings. Of the most contentious issue in today's society is the legitimization of physician-assisted suicide. One group of critics and thinkers argue that physician-assisted suicide should be legalized to ensure liberations from suffering, autonomy one's choice in how they die, and death with dignity as opposed to lying bedridden for weeks or months while relying on other people for even basic personal activities such as bathing, eating, and voiding. Another set of critics argue that legitimizing the practice undermines the sacred nature of life itself, opens up avenues for misuse of the practice, and demands physicians to learn the art of killing, which is contrary to the "do not harm" oath that physicians take. These two stern positions lead to the question of whether physician-assisted suicide should be legitimized. This module uses the deontological theory of ethics to determine the most appropriate position. It resolves that physician-assisted suicide should not be legitimized because of the innate lack of good will in the act itself.

Deontological theory

According to Farrell (2010), deontological ethics theory is founded on the relationship between a sense of duty of the doer and the morality of the human action. This means that an action is not perceived or judged as being morally good by the effect it produces but rather on the characteristics of the action itself. For instance, stealing is bad because it is morally wrong to take another person's item or property irrespective of whether the person stole food to feed starving children or not. From this example, it emerges that the morality of the action is always universal. Emmanuel Kant makes this stance clear. He argues that one should only use reason to judge the action in determining whether it is morally right or wrong but should never use the outcome of the action to judge the morality of the same action (Kant, 2010). This is in great contrast with the utilitarianism theory which would assert that stealing the food from the wealthy is morally good so long as the stolen food is used to feed starving children. In this sense, the morality, goodness, or badness of the action changes depending on circumstances. The deontological theory argues that such fluidity in judging the morality of an action is not proper. Instead, human beings must apply reason driven by a sense of duty to establish universal laws that should be upheld at any cost, regardless of whether the outcome of implementing that law is positive or negative. In explaining this principle, Kant posits that an action cannot be good until it is qualified as so by goodwill, which is the will to act in accordance with the moral law and respect for the law instead of acting out of natural inclination (Kant, 2010).

Application of the theory in physician-assisted theory

The critics that support the legitimization of physician-assisted suicide propose two main reasons why the practice should be allowed. First, they claim that patients facing imminent death from known conditions such as cancer or HIV/AIDs suffer greatly as they wait for their death in bed. As such, these should be allowed to choose whether to fasten their death and avoid physical, psychological, and emotional suffering or pain (Orfali, 2011). They also argue that legitimizing the practice ensures that the person dies with dignity as they avoid the embarrassment associated with assisted voiding, bathing, and eating (Orfali, 2011). From a deontological ethics point of view, these two reasons are founded on natural inclination and circumstances. They fail to consider the goodwill of the action itself. The action in question is the act of killing another person or terminating another person's life. Using the lens deontological ethics humanity should stop viewing the outcomes of the act (killing) and instead look at the morality of the law itself. Using this approach, it emerges that killing another person is intrinsically wrong because life is sacred. Therefore, if life is recognized as sacred even in the constitution and killing outlawed in the same legal document, why should certain people start using special circumstances to justify killing? The principle of deontological ethics asserts that the morality of the action ought to be universal. As such, killing is morally wrong irrespective of circumstances. The theory would further argue that doctors take a universal oath of not doing any harm to the patient. Killing the patient is harming them. Therefore, physicians should stick to the universal law of only doing good to the patients and avoid killing them.

Objection to the deontological stance

Interestingly, the main objection to the stand taken by deontological theory concerning physician-assisted suicide uses the principles of deontological theory. Critics could argue that the argument provided in this module selectively anoints two aspects of the act of killing itself while disregarding one aspect that is equally important. This aspect is autonomy. Autonomy is the freedom to determine how one wants to live their life or die. Using the principle of universal law purported by deontological theory, these critics may argue that autonomy should be universally accepted. As such, denying the patient the freedom of how they should leave this world is morally wrong even by the standards of deontology.

Another important objection that is more obvious directly opposes the failure of the deontological ethics to factor the outcome of one's action. By refusing to acknowledge that circumstances should determine one's action, deontological philosophers cause unnecessary suffering to stakeholders of the issue. This stance is argued and supported by utilitarianism philosophers. According to these thinkers, the positive outcome should be the ultimate and universal law in determining the morality of an action.

Conclusion

Physician-assisted suicide is a controversial debate characterized by a group in favor of its legitimization and another team opposing its legalization. Ethical theories can be used to determine the morality of the proposed practice. The deontological theory argues against its legitimization. It resolves that physician-assisted suicide should not be legitimized because of the innate lack of good will in the act itself. First, the theory resolves that reasons provided for the legalization are based on consequences and outcomes. As such, they fail to uphold the principle of universality of the morality of the act of killing. Secondly, deontological theory observes that since life is universally sacred, physician-assisted suicide should not be permitted because the killing act is morally wrong. Similarly, physicians have the universal moral duty of not harming the patient. Killing the patient under provisions of physician-assisted suicide is therefore morally wrong because it harms the patient. The stance of the deontological theory is objected to from two perspectives. First, it fails to consider the universality of human autonomy. Secondly, it is objected from the utilitarianism perspective, which asserts that positive outcome should be the universal rule of duty.

References Farrell, M. E. (2010). Ethics: A University Guide. New York: Progressive Frontiers Pubs. Kant, I. (2010). Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals. Jonathan Bennett. Orfali, R. (2011). Death with Dignity: The Case for Legalizing Physician-assisted Dying and Euthanasia. Santa Monica: Hillcrest Publishing Group.