Kant's Ethics Applied to Euthanasia

Euthanasia is a hugely controversial issue in our society because it centers around the values people place on the sanctity of life and the ability of a person to choose their fate. Proponents of euthanasia believe that people should have the right to decide the course and end of their own life, especially when it ends their own suffering. Opponents disagree, stating that suicide denigrates the value we place on life and makes society more willing to throw it away. To boil the issue down to these simple arguments does not do justice to the complexity of the ethics surrounding euthanasia. There are many different types of euthanasia, such as active and passive, and voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. What may be considered right in one case may not be right at all in another. The objective of this paper is to explain why certain ethical perspectives are the wrong way of understanding euthanasia. To do this, Kant's theory of ethics will be used to analyze the situation where a family member decides to actively assist in euthanizing her senile mother who is in intense pain.

The main tenets of Kant's ethics are laid out in his book entitled Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. In this book, he states that every moral action must be rationally supported without regard to consequences. This is called the 'categorical imperative'; it is supported by three principles. One principle is that moral action is moral only when it can be applied by any person under similar circumstances. Kant states in Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, that suicide is not universally moral. For example, is it moral for a depressed mother to take her own life even though her children depend on her for material and emotional support? In this case, she has a moral duty to stay alive to take care of her children. Euthanasia is a form of suicide, but actively assisted suicide is highly controversial since it requires the direct intervention of someone to hasten the death of a patient. A utilitarian may decide that this is morally justified if the patient is in severe pain and their suicide could free up medical resources for the support of other people. But Kant's ethics do not take into account the consequences of such actions. According to Kant, euthanasia as a form of suicide is not universally supported and thus should not be done.

Another tenet of Kant's ethical theory is that moral agents (rational humans) be autonomous, not letting ulterior motives guide their decisions. He says "the dignity of humanity consists just in its capacity to legislate universal law, though with the condition of humanity’s being at the same time itself subject to this very same legislation." (Kant and Ellington, 44) In the situation that was illustrated, a senile mother no longer has the competence or rationality to decide her future. That decision falls to the daughter who still retains rational function. However, if the daughter lets her sympathy for her mother's pain cloud her decision making, she is not making an ethical or moral decision.

Furthermore, the right for the daughter to make that decision at all is unclear in Kant's ethics. Kant says that individuals are responsible only for the decision they make, not the decisions of others. Furthermore, they should not manipulate the feelings or lives of others. This creates another contradiction; can the daughter decide in the best interest of her mother if her mother lacks the rational capacity to have any interests at all? If the daughter decides for her mother, is she complicit in murder? Does that mean that all people should condone the killing of others in severe pain? And while she may make this decision out of un-selfish regard for her mother, could anyone else in similar situations be able to make the same justification.

According to Kant, the moral decision of an individual to take their own life should be based on the absolute duty to morals. His argument against suicide is cogent because suicide robs people of their autonomy and thus their "human dignity". This must be avoided. However, Kant revises his decision in a case involving a man bitten by a rabid dog. The man in this example wonders whether he should commit suicide before he loses his ability to act rationally (Cooley, 2007). It may seem noble for this man to take his own life in order to preserve his dignity. How does this apply to the daughter actively assisting in the suicide of her senile mother? Is it morally right to take one’s own life to avoid the loss of rationality and dignity that comes with the threat of dementia? Yes, but what happens in the case where an individual fails to take their own life and loses their autonomy due to dementia? In this case, should the doctor and family follow-through by killing the terminally ill patient in order to cease that individual from losing their human dignity? After an individual loses this autonomy, are they still considered human? In which case would it still be considered murder to end their 'physical life' in order to preserve their 'moral life?' (Cooley 2007).

In conclusion, Kant's ethics should not be followed in this situation because of the conflicting principles upon which his theory rests. On the one hand, the principle of universalism states that a decision is not moral unless persons in similar circumstances can make the same decision and it is considered ethical in both instances. On the other is it completely ethical to commit suicide to preserve autonomy and dignity. The situation in question rests on two statements. One is that someone other than the individual affected must make the decision for euthanasia since the individual affected is senile. Two, that person decides to kill in order to end suffering. According to the principle of universality, killing is wrong in every instance. According to the principle of the preservation of autonomy and dignity, assisted suicide can be ethical. Since Kantian ethics cannot provide a clear solution to this situation another perspective should be taken in order to inform decisions. If the goal of an individual in assisting in the suicide of another is to alleviate suffering, they should perhaps use utilitarian ethics in order to justify their decisions.

Works Cited

Cooley, Dennis R. "A Kantian Moral Duty for the Soon-to-be Demented to Commit Suicide." The American Journal of Bioethics 7.6 (2007): 37-44. Print.

Kant, Immanuel, and James W. Ellington. Grounding for the metaphysics of morals with, on a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns. 3rd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1993. Print