Essay #2: Utilitarianism

Assisted Suicide and Utilitarianism

Many people who oppose suicide in general would call it a permanent solution to a temporary problem.  However, the Oregon law outlined in Case Study #28 is not advocating suicide for those with temporary problems, only those rational, non-depressive adults who suffer from a terminal illness and are not expected to live for more than six months.  The diagnosis of the illness requires a second, consulting physician to verify the diagnosis of the first, and requires that the patient be able to make rational decisions, not influenced by psychological problems.  Many people who attempt suicide, whether with or without a terminal condition, are indeed also suffering from psychological problems as well as depression, but not all.  Given the stipulations allowing assisted suicide, and in view of the Utilitarian philosophy of ethics, the Oregon Death With Dignity Act is justified, and should not be repealed.

The Death With Dignity Act imposes a waiting period on those individuals who meet the criteria for assisted suicide.  Not only does this waiting period allow the patients to think through their decision, so as to give them the chance to change their minds before the lethal dose of drugs is prescribed, but it also gives the patient a chance to set their affairs in order and say goodbye to friends and family.  The fact that the patient is willingly giving up on life may be seen as a negative to those they leave behind, but the waiting period is short enough that the patient is unlikely to die unexpectedly before that time, and gives the family members and friends a chance to confirm that assisted suicide is indeed the patient’s choice, and that the patient is indeed ready to die.  Both the patient, as well as his or her friends and family, can then be satisfied—even if they cannot be completely happy with the loss of a family member or friend—that the patient has made the right choice for himself or herself.  The patient will die anyway in a matter of time, but not allowing assisted suicide would cause pain not only to the patient, but for those who remain behind as well, since they will watch the patient’s condition deteriorate and there may be much pain involved for the patient.  This protraction of pain and suffering goes against the Utilitarian view that pleasure should be maximized and pain should be minimized.

The assisted suicide of terminally ill patients, with the criteria stipulated in Case Study #28, would also be of benefit to society in general.  For instance, hospice care and lengthy hospital stays cost a lot of money, whether the patient has insurance or not, the cost to someone or some group within society—perhaps Social Security or Medicare—would be enormous.  The patient is given the option to choose hospice care, comfort care and pain control (case study), but if the patient still chooses suicide, that choice represents many thousands of dollars which could be used to assist in the care of someone who is more likely to live a longer amount of time than a terminally ill patient.

Finally, allowing patients the option of assisted suicide, with the waiting period imposed by Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act, allows family members and friends to attend the patient at their death who might not have been able to do so if the patient was to choose hospice or comfort care or pain management.  The day of death would be set in the case of assisted suicide, and those individuals wishing to be present when the patient was to die would be able to plan ahead of time to be there.  This would save hundreds of dollars to those people travelling both by air and by ground, as last-minute travel plans always cost more than travel plans made ahead of time.  Should the patient not have the option of assisted suicide, many family members or friends may not be able to leave their jobs, families or studies with such short notice when the patient finally did die, and that would cause pain not only to those unable to attend, but to the patient as well, since he or she would probably want to be able to personally say goodbye to as many family members and friends as possible, maximizing the satisfaction in his or her death for the highest amount of people possible.

Given the criterion by which a patient may request and be granted assisted suicide according to Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act, the law should stand, since it satisfies the Utilitarian stipulation that any decision should be made based on whether or not the consequences of such a decision will maximize satisfaction and minimize dissatisfaction for the highest number of individuals.  The stipulations in the Act, while probably not making many people happy—after all, the death of a loved one is involved—will at least satisfy the highest number of people, including the patient, the doctors, and the patient’s family and friends.  Those stipulations also satisfy at least some economic problems involved, and thereby satisfy even more individuals indirectly.  Therefore, according to the Utilitarian philosophy of ethics, the Oregon Death With Dignity Act should not be repealed.