Running head APPLICATION OF AN ETHICAL THEORY1APPLICATION OF.docx

Running head: APPLICATION OF AN ETHICAL THEORY 1
APPLICATION OF AN ETHICAL THEORY 2
Application of an Ethical Theory
Trudie J. Harris
Professor: PHI 208 Ethics and Moral Reasoning
Instructor: Christopher Kinney
Date: Feb 23, 2015
Granting the people who are terminally ill the right to die has
been debatable overtime. It is worth noting that people who are
terminally ill have a limited period of time to live. As such,
some parties argue that whether or not they continue living they
will at long last die and hence it is only justifiable if they are
given the right to decide whether to live or to die. Others argue
that it is an equivalent people if terminally ill people are
granted the right to die and hence it is unethical act. Applying
the theory of deontology it is unethical to let people who are
terminally ill have the right to die.
The theory of deontology is centered on the motives of the
person who carries out a specific action. Kant (2008) provides
that it is not the consequences attributable to a specific action

that can be used as a basis of classifying the action right or
wrong but rather it is the motive with the doer of the action did
it. Kant argues that at times consequences of an action may
contradict the intentions of the doer. Thus, desirable
consequences may arise by coincidence from act whose doer
wanted to undesirable consequences. Consequently, by bad luck
undesirable consequences may arise from an act whose doer
intended desirable consequences for the action. Hence, this fact
forms a basis on which Kant finds it justifiable to consider the
motives of an individual when looking at the consequences of
an act. Kant (2008) further adds that for an individual to act in a
way that is considered moral h/she must act in respect of the
moral law. He provides that an individual should act in a way
that always upholds the sense of humanity and that the each
individual should undertake to act out of their own goodwill in
upholding humanity.
Applying the theory of deontology and provisions of Immanuel
Kant renders it unethical to grant terminally ill people the right
to die. As noted in the paragraph above, it is the motive of the
doer of a specific act that determines whether the act is right or
wrong and not the consequences that can be attributed to the
specific act. Hence, the motive of granting terminally ill people
the right to die will be more or less a motive of killing which is
unethical. Though terminally ill people may be granted the right
to die as a course of action to save them from the psychological
torture that they may go through knowing that they will finally
die, considering the motive the act will be unethical. It is also
worth noting that according to Kant (2008) individual should
act in respect to the moral law that requires that people should
always act in a way that upholds the sense of humanity.
Granting terminally ill people the right to die can be considered
as being against humanity and hence this makes it justifiable to
categorize it as being unethical.
Though granting terminally ill people the right to die is
unethical in relation to the theory of deontology, it is worth
noting that there are other factors which if taken into account

can make it justifiable to grant terminally ill patients the right
to die. For instance, it is worth noting that every individual has
the right to determinism which means that an individual has the
right to make decisions over his or her life insofar as the
decisions do not violate the rights of others. Hence, it may be
considered justifiable to let competent patients who are
terminally ill exercise their right to self determinism and hence
grant them the right to die limiting the applicability of the
deontology theory and the provisions of Immanuel Kant. Some
parties argue that once a patient realizes that h/she is terminally
ill they are prone to psychological torture since every time they
may keep thinking that they ought to die. Such parties may find
it justifiable to grant terminally ill individuals the right to die to
save them all the psychological torture. Hence, it is justifiable
to say that the application of deontology theory is subject to
objections in this case.
The question of whether or not terminally ill patients should be
given the right to die can have varied answers depending on the
perspective from which it is viewed. Taking into account the
principles of deontology theory and the provisions of Immanuel
Kant granting terminally persons the right to die will be
unethical since it will be acting against the moral law. There are
objections to the deontology theory and the provisions of
Immanuel Kant though. For instance, granting competent
patients the right to self-determinism can see them have the
right to die if they are terminally ill. As such, it is evident that
the question of whether or not terminally ill patients should
have the right to die can have varied opinions from varied
parties depending on the perspective from which the issue is
viewed.

References
Kant, I. (2008). Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals.
Retrieved on 24th February, 2015 from
http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdfs/kant1785.pdf
Buchanan, A. (2003). Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-
Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law: Moral
Foundations for International Law. Oxford University Press.
Right to Die as Choice
Name: Trudie Harris
University: Ashford University
Professor: PHI 208 Ethics and Moral Reasoning
Instructor: Christopher Kinney
Date: Feb 22, 2015

Receiving a diagnosis of terminal illness leaves many patients
and families in a challenging ethical debate. Many diseases
have no hope for a cure; inevitably the prolonged suffering of
the terminally ill can expensive and emotional for all involved.
As a terminal illness takes over a person it slowly destroys all
functions including cogitative abilities, life painfully and
slowly comes to an end while other have to watch and the
patient has to endure. The terminally ill has nothing to look
forward to, except a slow and painful death. So to end the
suffering, I believe it should be the individual choice of the
patient for a gentle and certain death with dignity. This process
is referred to as active euthanasia. The act is intentional killing
of a person, for compassionate motives, whether the killing is
by a direct action, or by failing to perform an action necessary
to maintain life. (finalexit.org/dhumphry). I believe that active
euthanasia should be legal and individuals with terminal illness
should have the choice of the dying on their own terms.
Although passive euthanasia is legal, the diagnosed patient does
not make the choice. It is the decision made by a loved one or
doctor, who feels the sick patient, would be better off dead. In
this case lethal injections are not used, but ignoring necessary
treatment, such as not giving medication needed to live, used as
the method of performing euthanasia.
People have different views about active euthanasia because;
one Ethically Significant issue is that, assisting in a suicide is a
felony. It is against the law everywhere in the United States to
assist a suicide "" no matter what the reason. About half of the
states in the United States have laws that specifically prohibit
assisted suicide. (Final Exit). The state could also bring charges
such as manslaughter or murder. Only one country permits a
doctor to help a terminally ill patient die by request and that is
the Netherlands. (Final Exit).
Dr. Jack Kevorkian has become well known for assisting in
suicides for the terminally ill. Since his first assistance of

suicide in 1990 to help Janet Adkins die after she was diagnosed
with Alzheimer's disease, active euthanasia has become a very
controversial issue. (The Canberra Times). There was criticism
by a few psychologists and ethicists, but there was also public
support for his compassion. I feel that if someone is terminally
ill with no chance of recovery that active euthanasia is a
decision that the terminally ill person should be able to make
for him or herself.
The second ethical issue is that many Medical associations
whose members are dedicated to saving and extending life, feel
euthanasia is unethical. They may also feel uncomfortable
assisting in killing a patient, since their jobs are to save lives.
Doctors also believe a patient who is an otherwise healthy
person now might just be going through a period of depression.
Instead of assisting in ending their life they feel they should be
treated for that depression. (linacre.org). If a person should be
allowed to commit suicide is not the question to be asked, but
whose choice is it to be living with a painful and unbearable
disease? Anyone with an incurable disease is bound to be
depressed. So to tell the person they cannot choose to die
because it might just be out of depression is just wrong and
heartbreaking to the person most directly affected by the
disease.
Another considerable reason that people disagree with active
euthanasia is because of religious beliefs. Many Roman
Catholics and members of other religions believe that life is the
gift of God and is thus only to be taken by God. It is stated in
the Bible "Thou shall not kill." (Bible). They believe that
killing in any way is immoral, but I feel death can be justified
depending on the circumstances. I cannot judge another human's
actions. Only God can judge these actions. However, if you
cannot enjoy life and be happy with people you love, is life
really worth living? If people are too weak to take his/her own
life, he/she may feel it would be comforting to have someone to

spend their last minutes with and to assist him/her in the way
they choose to die. The thought of someone taking his/her own
life or assisting in taking someone else's life is a chilling
thought. But the thought of a loved one suffering every day
without any peace and thinking that they may take their life in a
violent way is even more chilling. From my ethical stand point I
believe It should be their legal right to choose to die in a
peaceful manner with dignity on their individual terms.
Is it killing? Or is it mercy? Or is it by all measures
unconditional love? As with all situations, circumstances will
differ, but until we are inflicted or someone we hold dear is
inflicted with an incurable, pain killing disease, then and only
then will we come to believe whose choice to live or die it
really is.
References:
http://www.linacre.org/
www.canberratimes.com.au
http://www.finalexit.org/
Draper, Heather (1998). "Euthanasia". In Chadwick, Ruth.
Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics 2. Academic Press.
"euthanasia". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press.
April 2010. Retrieved 26 April 2011.
Kohl, Marvin; Kurtz, Paul (1975). "A Plea for Beneficient
Euthanasia". In Kohl, Marvin. Beneficient Euthanasia. Buffalo,
New York: Prometheus Books. p. 94., quoted in Beauchamp &

Davidson (1979), p 295.
Running head: Applying an Ethical Theory 1
Applying an Ethical Theory on Assisted Death
Preshay Weatherspoon
PHI208: Ethics and Moral Reasoning
Instructor: Larry Baker
November 3, 2014
Applying an Ethical Theory 2
Applying an Ethical Theory on Assisted Death
Life is a beautiful gift from God, death comes after life. Death
is meant to come without
notice, There’s a saying “you never know when it’s your time to
go “. Should one make a
decision to end his or her life, to terminate pain and suffering
cause by a severe illness?
Physician assisted death is an outgoing dispute throughout the
world, many will never come to
an agreement on. Philosophers explain many different theories
that are used to determine logic

and reasoning beliefs. Deontologist states that it’s a moral duty
to support and sustain life and
assisted suicide should not be allowed. I agree with
Deontologist point of view I believe it is
immoral for a Physician to assist a patient in death. Throughout
this essay I will examine the
deontological perspective on physician assisted suicide.
Deontological ethical theory
Deontologist argue to sustain a life is moral and is immoral to
end a human life no
matter what the situation may be. “It is important to remember
that deontologists do not deny
that acts have consequences; their point is that those
consequences should not play a role in
evaluating the act's morality. Rather, deontological ethics
focuses on the will of the person
acting, the person's intention in carrying out the act, and
particularly, the rule according to which
the act is carried out. Deontology focuses on the duties and
obligations one has in carrying out
actions rather than on the consequences of those actions
(Mosser, 2013). To make a decision to
end your life can be caused by being pain and suffering

.Another cause can be family or friends
persuading by saying ending your life is the best way to relieve
pain. Deontological theory
believes Physician assisted is committing suicide because a life
is ending and not being
preserved. “Many argue that a compromise is to continue to
develop drugs and other forms of
palliative care—treatment that reduces suffering—to alleviate a
terminally ill person's anguish.
Utilitarianism ethical theory “When given a choice between
two acts, utilitarianism
states that the act that should be chosen is the one that creates
the greatest amount of happiness
for the greatest number of people"(Mosser,2013). Assisted
suicide will not create the greater
number of happiness. Ending a life is never happiness loved
ones are in pain to see a love one
suffer and in even more pain to watch their life end. “Both
utilitarianism and deontology have
certain advantages. Utilitarian calculations are, at least at first
glance, fairly easy to devise and

provide a quick way to evaluate the moral worth of an act.
Deontology, on the other hand, has
the appeal of being easily explained and develops rules that
seem to make sense and are also
widely applied”(Mosser,2013). I believe Deontology theory is
most effective in assisted suicide,
for example if a patient suffered for ten years with cancer and
five doctors agree to stop
treatments, but two doctors are willing to continue treatment
,Utilitarianism theory would stop
treatment because the greater number rules. Deontology theory
would evaluate what’s the best
decision over all. Happiness comes from the heart, there are
many different programs design to
help the severe ill one is hospice,”The hospice movement
emphasizes the reduction of end-of-life
suffering and promotes death with dignity, and it has thus
become an increasingly attractive
option for those who resist endorsing PAS” (Mosser, 2013).
It is important that all medical staff and professional properly
analyzed a patient for
making a decision end of life intervention. Assisted suicide
requires strict specific steps to
follow, In Oregon PAS is legal. The patient must be a resident

of Oregon and must have 6 or less
months to live .Patient must also consent verbally and give
written notice to end life. Although
the patient is giving more than enough time to make the
decision to end their life, ending your
life is a bias choice, life is precious. Pain and suffering can be
temporarily why make a choice
that God has last say so to. Physician-assisted suicide cause
love was to lose faith it will also
prevent doctors from taking extra steps to save a life. Miracles
happen on a daily basis, a blind
man can vision is now clear, the man who once was in a wheel
chair can now run faster than he
ever could .I am a firm believer that God has all power to
around any situation. Making a choice
to end a life is never a choice of a human . Although many may
not agree with Deontological
theory, to sustain a life vs ending a life is the moral way of life.

References
Kant, I. (2008). Groundwork for the metaphysic of morals. In J.
Bennett (Ed. & Trans.), Early
Modern Philosophy. Retrieved from
(Original work published in 1785).
Mosser, K. (2013). Understanding philosophy. San Diego, CA:
Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
Annas, J. (2006). Virtue ethics. In D. Copp (Ed.), the Oxford
Handbook of Ethical Theory (pp.
515– 36). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
https://www.sesync.org/sites/default/files/resources/case_studie
s/10-kenyaecotourism-
handbook.pdf
Applying an Ethical Theory on Assisted DeathDeontological
ethical theoryReferences
1
Applying an Ethical Theory
Amanda Thorn
PHI 208 Prof. Emilia Sorensen

November 17, 2014
2
The long debated question of the importance of men and women
and their roles has raged
on for years. Should men and women be treated equally, that
truly is the question that seems to
have more answers than resolution. Applying the question to
Deontology and the work of
Immanuel Kant, the answer would be all people regardless of
gender should be treated equally.
However, these theories do not take into account the actions of
the male or female in question.
The question still remains, should men and women be treated
equally or should it be based on the
situation, all accounts will be taken into further consideration.
Deontology is an ethical theory that only focuses on the act
itself, not on the actions the
act itself will bring about. Deontologists do acknowledge that
actions bring on certain reactions
but do not believe the reaction should be taken into
consideration when determining if an act was

moral or not. “Deontology, taken in its largest sense, is meant
that branch of art and science
which has for its object the doing on each occasion what is right
and proper to be done “(Louden,
1996). Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative takes this and
breaks it down into rules and with
these rules assumes that all people are moral. These rules have
no “but” to them, they are
straightforward, basically if you do this, you are moral or
immoral. For example, if you kill
someone, no matter if it is in self-defense or cold blooded then
the person is considered immoral.
This theory is not complicated and very to the point, it is easy
to follow and has many supporters.
Using Immanuel Kant’s’ categorical imperative to address the
issue of men and women
being treated equally then men and women should be treated the
same. No matter if one is the
bread winner and one stays at home, or if one is a high level
executive and the other is a
secretary. “Act in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in
your own person or in that of
anyone else, always as an end and never merely as a means”
(Kant, 2008). A woman staying at

3
home to take care of a household is no less important than her
husband who goes to work every
day and brings money into the home. They are both important to
each other, one is not the others
object to use as they please. This reminds me of what the
teachers would say in school, treat
others in the same way as you want to be treated.
The theory of Deontology, although very clear and fair in
deciding if an act is moral or
immoral is not perfect. One flaw with this theory is that it does
not look at the other side of an
action. “One other classical, or traditional, theory remains; it
does not look at the consequences
of our acts or at the acts themselves and the rules that guide
these acts” (Mosser, 2014) For
example a man and a woman both work at the same company,
and do the same job. Under the
rules of Deontology when it’s time to give raises, they both
should receive one. Many people in
the working world would like this to remain true, but in normal
circumstances the boss would

check performance. One may receive a raise and one may not
depending on their job
performance. According to the theory this would be wrong, and
immoral and has nothing to do
with ones gender.
The question of men and women being treated equally is an
ethical question that can be
addressed in many ways. Using the rules of Deontology by
Immanuel Kant, one would say that
men and women should always be treated equally no matter the
situation. However, is this fair in
every situation? Many times not looking at the result of an
action actually causes the action itself
to be unethical. The battle of the sexes continues to rage on, and
the question of what is right and
what is wrong is never a clear cut answer.
4
References
Kant, I. (2008). Groundwork for the metaphysic of morals. In J.
Bennett (Ed. & Trans.),

Early Modern Philosophy. Retrieved from
(Original work published in 1785).
Louden, R. B. (1996). Torward a genealogy of 'deontology'.
Journal of the History of
Philosophy, 34(4), 571-592. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/210600328?
accountid=32521
Mosser, K. (2013). Understanding philosophy. San Diego, CA:
Bridgepoint Education,
Inc.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/210600328?accountid=3252
1
http://search.proquest.com/docview/210600328?accountid=3252
1
5

Running head APPLICATION OF AN ETHICAL THEORY1APPLICATION OF.docx

More Related Content

More from joellemurphey (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Running head APPLICATION OF AN ETHICAL THEORY1APPLICATION OF.docx