Argumentative Essay Sample on Rule Util & Euthanasia: Is Prolonging Life Morally Right

Introduction

In "Rule-Utilitarianism and Euthanasia," Brad Hooker raises questions on whether it is morally right to prolong individuals lives than just allowing them to die immediately and saving them the pain. He elaborates on the issue by discussing euthanasia. Medical professions are faced with a difficult situation when they have to protect critically ill patients. They get torn in between saving them or just allowing them to die and saving them the pain they have to undergo by dying slowly. Hooker questions whether actively killing patients would be the best idea than allowing them to die slowly and painfully; he analyzes this through euthanasia concept. This paper seeks to analyze Hooker's ideas about euthanasia and how he connects Unitarianism theory to the concept.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Terms

Euthanasia comes from a Greek word that refers to an easy and painless death. Another term used to describe euthanasia is "passive euthanasia," which refers to passing up an opportunity to save someone (Hooker, 2011). This scenario gets witnessed in the medical sector, where the doctors strive to the best of their capabilities to ensure that they keep their patients; this is often painful. Therefore, euthanasia is either killing or passing opportunities to save people because of the concerns humans have for each other. According to Hooker killing terminally ill patients helps ease their pain and this saves them the struggle they would have to undergo if they stay alive.

Hooker uses the theory of utilitarianism to analyze the concept of euthanasia. Utilitarianism measures the rules in terms of their expected utility. He starts with the first category, classical utilitarianism; it uses "utility" to explain the wellbeing of sentient creatures (Hooker, 2011). Creatures are well if they do not have pain and can get pleasure. Therefore, wellbeing gets measured by the level of pleasure and pain human beings experience. Hooker argues that if anything is desirable the way it is, for its own sake, then it brings pleasure, and if it is undesirable, then it causes pain.

However, people care more about other things, such as knowledge and autonomy, which means controlling their individual lives. So people not only look for pleasure, but they also desire to have other things such as knowledge and autonomy, which contribute to their wellbeing (Hooker, 2011). People can undergo various physical pain or be in bad condition to the extent that they feel the best way out is death. It is difficult to draw lines where someone is better off dead and better off alive. It is unreasonable to suggest that there are no points where patients are better off deceased because they are. Hooker argues that utilitarians focus on doing the highest good; hence, they focus on keeping patients alive even if they are well off dead.

Act Utilitarianism

The second category is the act utilitarianism. Hooker gives two versions of act utilitarianism. The first one suggests that acts become right if their actual consequences have at least much utility as any other action open to the same agents (Hooker, 2011). The second version claims that an act is right if its expected utility is as great as that of any alternative. Act utilitarianism claims that an action would be good if the results exceed the actual utility or are higher than the alternative acts. For instance, the theory justifies stealing if it results in higher utility, and its effects are higher than the alternative acts. However, it would be immoral to praise some other actions such as stealing because they exceed the utility levels. Hooker argues that act utilitarianism is highly demanding and requires a lot of sacrifice beyond the call of duty.

Hooker also elaborates on the third category, which is rule utilitarianism. Hooker argues that rule utilitarianism is different from act utilitarianism on the basis that it does not assess acts separately based on their utilities. Rule utilitarianism determine acts based on rules and rules based on their utility (Hooker, 2011). Rule utilitarianism believes that acts are morally permissible if the rules with the highest expected utility allow it. For instance, if a person internalizes a rule against killing innocent people, then such individuals would have a negative perception about killers and can be against such an act. Hooker believes that choosing to kill or prolong an individual's life depends on which kind of utilitarianism an individual subscribes to.

Hooker also gives an elaboration of three different kinds of euthanasia voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary (Hooker, 2011). Voluntary euthanasia occurs when a patient in extreme conditions agrees with the doctor to allow him or her to die because the chances of recovery are low or causing a lot of pain. Non-voluntary euthanasia occurs when a patient die, for instance, in a coma without agreeing to die or consent. If a patient expresses a desire not to die or makes it clear he or she is not ready to die, then the killing happens, it gets referred to as involuntary euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is very challenging. If a person does not want to die, how does killing them to ease their pain do them any good? Doctors face challenging decisions to make when encountering patients who do not want to die, yet their conditions jeopardize the demands. It is immoral to allow people to die against their wishes.

Law

Hooker argues that Utilitarians suggests that government or law should not be involved in making euthanasia decisions. When a person is suffering, doctors do all they can to ensure they make the best decisions out of their available options; it would be wrong to judge their actions (Hooker, 2011). Hooker gives benefits that that are associated with euthanasia. He suggests that it helps prevent the elongation of suffering for the terminally ill and their families. Hooker argues that some pain cannot get terminated using drugs, and hence it is wise to allow death to ease the pain. Hooker feels that ending physical and emotional pain looks more desirable. Hooker feels that ending an individual's life has some autonomy satisfaction, and it helps prevent further frustration.

I disagree with Hooker's stance on how to treat terminally ill patients by applying euthanasia. Hooker seems more inclined to believe that if a person is in critical condition, then it is morally right to allow them to die. I think it is ethically wrong to let people die because we believe they do not have chances of survival or are undergoing intense pain. What about patients who recover under critical conditions? It would be unfair to rob these patients their lives because they are willing to die, or doctors do not see their survival chances.

Sometimes not only doctors but all professionals make mistakes. The decisions humans believe are right, in some instances, turn out to be the wrong. If a patient struggle to stay alive, it indicates that the patient is ready to fight the sickness. It would be wrong to say that a critically ill person is better off dead. That person has fought hard to stay alive, and it is not the doctor's decision to make to ease their frustrations through death. It is also impossible to measure the chances of death and survival because biologically, human bodies can work miracles. Therefore, it would be better to allow nature to take its course, and doctors should do their best to keep patients alive unless it is practically impossible. I politely disagree with Hookers view, I feel life is more important and allowing people die is not doing them any good.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, Hooker asserts that euthanasia is either killing or passing up opportunities to save people from suffering. Hooker uses utilitarianism theory to justify his claims about euthanasia. Hooker believes that it is morally right to kill a person if such an individual is terminally ill to ease them from suffering. Hooker suggests that there is no point in making people who are better off dead longer if killing them can ease their pain and frustration. Physical and emotional pain causes a lot of suffering, and at times people wish that they are dead to avoid the difficult times they are going through. Hooker suggests that law should not apply in making euthanasia decisions because it is morally wrong to question doctors why they decide to let patients die. Of course, doctors try their best when they allow patients to die; they are automatically out of options. However, to some extent, Hooker is wrong because it is morally wrong to give up on patients because they are terminally ill. It is not the doctors' decision to make whether they should ease patients' suffering or not. It is best to allow nature to take its course and allow people more chances to fight whether they are better off dead or alive.

Reference

Hooker, B. (2011). Rule-Utilitarianism and Euthanasia. https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/0631228330/lafollette.pdf