Arguments Against Active Euthanasia

“Any action or social policy is morally right if it serves to increase the amount of happiness in the word or to decrease the amount of misery. Conversely, an action or social policy is morally wrong if it serves to decrease happiness or to increase misery.” (RSL/Rachels, EL 247) The utilitarian argument is used to justify and condemn many policies, however, I believe that the argument is especially fitting when it comes to the matter of active euthanasia. Mercy, an action that serves to decrease the overall misery in the world, is an unquestionable sign of kindness and correctness. Mercy comes in many forms and is rarely frowned upon. Following this reasoning, why is mercy that takes the form of ending a suffering patient’s life considered
In at least some cases, active euthanasia promotes the best interest of everyone concerned and violates no one’s rights, therefore, at least in some cases, active euthanasia is morally permissible.” (RSL/Rachels, EL 249) This is the strongest argument for active euthanasia in my opinion. Those who oppose this argument may claim that euthanasia is not in the best interests of all parties involved. The parties referenced are usually the friends/family/doctors and their grief over the situation or even the hospital and its shareholders losing money from the patient. First off, any person who wants to keep a family member alive who is in extreme pain for the sole reason of wanting to prolong being able to interact with them or to offset their own period of suffering following the family member’s death is incredibly selfish. The logical conclusion would be that family and friends of the patient would be relieved by their quick and early passing because of the avoidance of a month of suffering. Yes, of course the family and friends of the patient will experience emotional trauma from the passing of their loved one, but in due time the loved one you will pass whether they like it or not. Second, when it comes to financial losses to the hospital and its shareholders, those who would put monetary gain over the wellbeing of another human being have
Velleman poses an interesting point in saying that “having an option can be harmful even if we do not exercise it and – more surprisingly – if we exercise it and gain by doing so.” (83) It seems that Velleman is bringing up the perceived detrimental psychological effects of the option of euthanasia on a patient. Velleman argues that once a patient is given a choice to live or die, they are forced to be responsible for the choice they make and may be made to justify their decision. Of course it would be in poor taste to ask a terminal patient why they insist on prolonging their suffering, but the internal psychological damage caused by the question could be a heavy burden to bear in someone’s final days. Velleman also brings up the pressure placed on the patient by the family after the question to live or die is posed. A patient’s family could be adamant in keeping the patient alive until the very last moment, or they could try to coerce a patient into euthanasia for financial reasons. In short, Velleman believes that having more options places unneeded pressure on a patient, pressure that can negatively influence decisions made influencing the patient’s