FOUNDATION OF ETHICS

1st – INTERNAL ASSESMENT

ESSAY WRITING ON
EUTHANASIA

1|Page
Deontology is a philosophy that asserts that based on a set of principles, acts are either good
or bad. It gets its name from the Greek words "deon" and "logos," which indicate
"obligation" and "learning," respectively. "Duty study" is the literal translation. These norms
govern ethical behaviour, while those that do not are unethical. This ethical framework is
most closely associated with German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant claims that "ethical
activities must adhere to common universal moral law."1 Basic concepts like "honesty is the
best policy," which we are imbibed in us since childhood, are observed as governing ethics
rules. 

Death is a concept that is always attributed with the terms of negativity and fear. It is
typically viewed as 'bad' in society. Therefore, any ethical framework arguing for or against
Euthanasia is complicated. This is when the emotions of concerned people come in the way
of analysis and may cause problems in specific instances. It is critical to eliminate related
feelings and emotions when considering Euthanasia as an option for death. Hence, I have
opted to argue for its moral permissibility using a deontological framework.

The deontological theory suggested by Vaughn states that "the rightness of actions is

decided not merely by their effects, but partially or fully by their inherent nature."
2
According to deontology, to behave ethically, one must perform one's moral responsibilities.
Because the nature of these cases is contingent on the patient's agreement, therefore the idea
of using a patient-centred deontological ethical framework is favoured expressly for the
instances of Euthanasia.

LEGAL PERSPECTIVE:
The cessation of medical treatment with the purposeful intent of hastening the death of a
terminally sick patient is known as passive Euthanasia. On March 9, 2018, the Supreme
Court of India legalized passive Euthanasia for people in a permanent vegetative state by
terminating life support. The ruling came as part of a decision from India's most controversial
case, the "Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. UOI & Ors.3"  Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug
was a nurse working in the KEM Hospital of Mumbai. In 1973 she was sexually assaulted by
one of the male co-workers in the same hospital. And since then, remained in a "vegetative
state”4. Thirty-six years later, in 2009, journalist Pinki Virani filed a plea in the supreme
court of India stating that the "continued existence of Aruna violates her right to live in
dignity.5” Though rejected her plea in 2011, the court established a broad legal framework
and legalized "Passive Euthanasia" in India. 

At the international level Euthanasia, as a subject, is slowly gaining relevance. Efforts to

amend the government's euthanasia regulations in the recent past have been quite successful. 

1
Ethics Unwrapped, Deontology, https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/deontology, last visited 16-10-
2021.
2
Rae Nathan, Is Euthanasia morally permissible? Why? Or why not?
http://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/sounddecisions/vol1/iss1/4, last visited 16-10-2021.
3
Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. UOI Ors, ((2014) 5 SCC 338).
4
Brain foundation, Vegetative state, https://brainfoundation.org.au/disorders/vegetative-state/, last visited
16-10-2021.

5
Wikipedia, Pinki Virani, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinki_Virani, last visited 16-10-2021.

2|Page
In Belgium, Euthanasia was legalized in 2002. In 2014 amidst many controversies, the
government removed any lower age limit for Euthanasia, permitting children as young as 9 to
be euthanized due to severe uncurable medical conditions birth. The qualifying conditions for
Euthanasia are rapidly expanded, thereby paving the way to a society that upholds the Right
to a dignified life. The same is the case with countries like Canada. Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Switzerland, and the states of Washington and Oregon in the United States of
America, which have successfully legalized Euthanasia.6

  After reading the above examples, one question might arise: "is the government giving
complete autonomy of its citizens' lives to doctors, in the name of the right to death?" The
answer is no; the countries have not made Euthanasia as lenient as it may seem. There is a
rigorous protocol to be followed. The patients need to be proven eligible under both legal and
medical requirements with strict scrutiny only then is the permission granted. The physicians
or the family members who act as agents in administering Euthanasia have not been given the
freedom to take a voluntary decision on behalf of the patient. And this might never be a
possibility either, as Euthanasia is a process wherein the will and consent of the patient are of
utmost importance.   

ANALYSIS

The word "Euthanasia" derives its name from the words "eu" and "thanatos," meaning good
and death respectfully. It translates to "death in good intention." Euthanasia is principally
practiced further in two types, namely

 Active Euthanasia: The doctor plays a pivotal role, wherein he administers the
patient with a heavy dosage of a drug to end their life on humanitarian grounds. This
type of Euthanasia is debated much about on its moral floors (about which we shall
be discussing further), wherein deliberately taking away someone's life is considered
equal to murder.7
 Passive Euthanasia: The doctor, in this case, does not play any direct role.
Altercations are made in the life support systems on which the patient is surviving,
after which naturally the person's life is ended. (This type of Euthanasia is practiced
in India).8

The moral permissibility of Euthanasia does not depend on the much-debated question
"whether death is moral or immoral? ". Euthanasia rather depends on the patient who has
been suffering from a permanent disease. James Rachels argued in his essay "Active and
Passive Euthanasia” that "the difference between moral permissibility of active and
passive Euthanasia is dysfunctional as there is no morally defensible difference in those
acts. And thus, decisions about life and death are made on irrelevant grounds under that 9
traditional view.   In circumstances where active or passive Euthanasia is favoured, he argues
6
GerritKimsma, Physician assisted death in the Netherlands,
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199974412.001.0001/oxfordhb-
9780199974412-e-23?rskey=xOcpeQ&result=5, last visited 17-10-2021.
7
Alexander, Larry and Moore, Michael. "Deontological Ethics." Stanford
University, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/#PatCenDeoThe, last visited 17-10-2021.
8
IBID
9
James Rachel, Active and Passive Euthanasia, https://graduateway.com/article-active-and-passive-
euthanasia-by-james, last visited 17-10-2021

3|Page
that "killing is not inherently worse than letting someone die10. People believe there is a
moral difference between the two types of Euthanasia because they believe killing is ethically
worse than allowing someone to die. 

There is a moral obligation to allow someone desperate to end their life to get assistance from
a willing accomplice. The deontologist can argue that the longer-term repercussions of such a
permissive policy cannot outweigh this duty. Of course, the deontologist can prove that the
net benefit of the non-permissive policy is more significant than the marginal, and this is
complex to understand in the case of Euthanasia. Though the long-term consequences of a
permissive policy (i.e., the slide to involuntary Euthanasia) are unknown, giving importance
to the patient’s choice is crucial. Despite this, it is evident that there is no reason why the
deontologist cannot appeal in principle.

Euthanasia is a divisive and challenging topic to agree on when many elements intersect each
other in many scenarios. However, for a patient who has chosen to end their life, Euthanasia
looks to be the most logical option for letting them accomplish what they believe in; it is the
most reasonable thing to do. If the patient is terminally sick and agrees to Euthanasia, the
notion of autonomy is the most crucial consideration.

CONCLUSION

The nature of these circumstances prevents any outsider from determining what is appropriate
for the patient and thus from imposing their values on the patient; instead, such cases
demonstrate only autonomous intrinsic motives for knowing what is preferred for themselves
and exercising that autonomy. It depends on the patient's independence and his ability to
make judgments. Deontology (particularly patient-centred deontology), is the appropriate
ethical framework for assessing the moral permissibility of Euthanasia. James Rachel’s work
shows that there would be no difference between active and passive Euthanasia since both
include a deed, which enables us to conclude that such agents of the action should be
examined to decide or determine the moral permissibility of Euthanasia.11

A doctor can discontinue further treatment, or a physician can inject a combination of

medications as a way of death, depending on the action required for Euthanasia. It might be
argued that the physician who performs one of these acts is the agent of Euthanasia.
However, referring to the agent as a doctor minimizes the significance of the patient's
decision to choose Euthanasia. The patient's decision is the source of the agent; without it,
there would be no euthanasia action at all. As a result, while the physician giving the
medicine may be the physical agent, the actual agent who bears moral responsibility is the
patient himself and his decision to end his life.

"The moral permissibility of an action is determined by the decision itself and the actor
who makes it, not by the physical momentum of the action."12 Kant's principle of autonomy
supports this view of the patient as an agent since Kant sees a person as their end. In the case
10
IBID
11
David McNaughton, Deontology,
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195325911.001.0001/oxfordhb-
9780195325911-e-16?rskey=tBdmou&result=1, last visited 17-10-2021

12
Ethics Unwrapped, Deontology, https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/deontology, last visited 16-10-
2021

4|Page
of Euthanasia, a person is exercising their right to employ Euthanasia, making them their end
while utilizing the physician as a means to that end. According to Kant, the power to make
the patient's end is part of what causes the patient to have inherent worth because they are
functioning as a free, rational creature who can guide their existence.

REFERENCES
1.) Ethics Unwrapped, Deontology, https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/deontology,
last visited 16-10-2021.

2.) Rae Nathan, Is Euthanasia morally permissible? Why? Or why not?

http://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/sounddecisions/vol1/iss1/4, last visited 16-10-2021.

3.) Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. UOI and Ors, ((2014) 5 SCC 338).

4.) Brain foundation, Vegetative state, https://brainfoundation.org.au/disorders/vegetative-

state/, last visited 16-10-2021.

5.) Wikipedia, Pinki Virani, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinki_Virani, last visited 16-10-

2021.

6.) James Rachel, Active and Passive Euthanasia, https://graduateway.com/article-active-and-

passive-euthanasia-by-james, last visited 17-10-2021

7.) Jonathan Hughes, Consequentialism and the slippery slope: a response to Clark,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24354187, last visited 17-10-2021.
8.) Alexander, Larry and Moore, Michael. "Deontological Ethics." Stanford
University, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/#PatCenDeoThe, last visited
17-10-2021.

9.) David McNaughton, Deontology,

https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195325911.001.0001/
oxfordhb-9780195325911-e-16?rskey=tBdmou&result=1, last visited 17-10-2021
10.) Gerrit Kimsma, Physician assisted death in the Netherlands,
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199974412.001.0001/
oxfordhb-9780199974412-e-23?rskey=xOcpeQ&result=5, last visited 17-10-2021
11.) Patricia Heberer, Science,
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199211869.001.0001/
oxfordhb-9780199211869-e-3?rskey=xOcpeQ&result=8, last visited 17-10-2021

5|Page