Euthanasia

Click here for a case study on Daniel James who chose assisted suicide in Switzerland in 2008.

Bentham’s hedonistic act utilitarianism seeks to maximise the balance of pleasure over pain measured by the hedonic calculus which uses seven criteria (acronym PRRICED) to gauge the pleasure derived from different actions. In this calculation everyone is to count as one and no-one as more than one – we all have the same stake in the utility calculus. The issue of euthanasia hinges on the likely future pain of the sick or dying person, together with the pleasure or pain to family and friends and any other individuals affected by the euthanasia decision. For example, a hedonistic act utilitarian might see the future pain of a very ill patient, both mental and physical, as outweighing any probable pleasure – so the rational decision might be to choose death as long as all those affected agree to this, as Dr Anne Turner seems to have done (see docudrama A Short Stay in Switzerland). This needs to be set against the pleasure or pain of society more widely, through any likely effects on the population generally (eg loss of trust in doctors). Because of the difficulty determining likely consequences it is very difficult to do this calculation in practice – with the added problem that the hedonic calculus is frought with difficulty, as how do we know my hedon is the same value as your hedon of pleasure? How too can we be certain of how an illness will progress? Suppose the individual is depressed, as Daniel James may have been (see case study), should they be allowed to make a calculation on a distorted picture of the future? If there are clearcut negative quality of life issues it is likely that a rational utilitarian will choose death.