I know that utilitarianism is a theory of moral decision making, not a belief system, but I wonder how many utilitarians (specifically hedonistic utilitarians) would argue against the availability of physician assisted suicides. I don't believe that life has any inherent value or that a painless death, in and of itself, can be considered a tragedy. I support the legalization of physician assisted suicides, I even think that it should be covered by health care, I feel that a person should have the freedom to end their life if it contains more suffering than happiness and there's no reason to believe that they will probably (and not just possibly) experience a compensating, greater amount of happiness in future. Having the option of a convenient way out would drastically increase the standard of living for many people. On the other hand, you could argue against physician assisted suicides on the basis that it will cause more grief to the friends and family members of the deceased than it will alleviate, there's the possibility of it being abused (ie. people being pressured into committing suicide to support the family), it might be demoralizing to the community or even on the basis that the happiness the "victim" will experience in future will outweigh their current suffering but I think this is unlikely since animals feel pain more easily than we experience happiness, I don't think there is a practical amount of pleasure equivalent to the pain of chronic depression.

What argument would you give for or against the legalization of physician assisted suicide, for everyone and not just terminally ill people.

it will cause more grief to the friends and family members of the deceased than it will alleviate

Why would this cause of death create more grief than however they would have died? Or is it assumed that they're otherwise immortal?

DanielLC wrote:

it will cause more grief to the friends and family members of the deceased than it will alleviate

Why would this cause of death create more grief than however they would have died? Or is it assumed that they're otherwise immortal?

Suffering doesn't have to be rational to warrant consideration, does it? I suppose you could argue that the expectation of losing an 80 year old grandmother prevents you from having the same response that you would to the death of your 20 year old child, whom you expect to get married, have children, a successful career etc., or at the very least to outlive you. There's also the torment of 'what you could have done'.

I think that 95% of utilitarians or more would favour physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill, and rightly so. I think we can be quite clear cut here. Patients here can benefit from not suffering, and their families can benefit too. Read an article on Gideon Cordover, recently in the news. His father had to euthanase himself early because he was afraid that if he stayed any longer, he would not be able to raise a spoon to his mouth. If he required a family member to raise euthanasing medicine to his mouth, they could be charged with assisting manslaughter! Had Gideon's dad been able to stay alive longer, he could've said goodbye on his own terms, averting not only his, but also his family's suffering!

So I've said that the terminally ill should be able to access euthanasia. Those who argue a contrary point of view are usually of religious faith. But they usualyl argue on utilitarian grounds. They say that increasing the access to voluntary euthanasia will increase the incidence of involuntary euthanasia. But this argument is bogus. The slippery slope concept is just wrong. In countries where euthanasia is allowed, the incidence of involuntary killing by doctors has decreased. This argument should just be laid to rest. Basically, those who opposite euthanasia are using utilitarian reasoning to rationalise a point of view that they hold for emotional and religious reasons.

Should euthanasia be allowed in cases of chronic depression? Yes, eventually. But that's not going to be made a law anytime in the next decade anywhere on the planet. Don't even hope or think or speak about it, in my opinion. Just give it twenty years, and then re-evaluate in my opinion.

RyanCarey wrote:In countries where euthanasia is allowed, the incidence of involuntary killing by doctors has decreased.

D'you have an open-access source for that? It would be a handy bit of data to carry round.

No I don't, it's something Peter Singer says when he's asked about the topic these days, but a cursory search hasn't found you any citation.