I am going to apply the theory of Kant's Deontology to the case regarding assisted suicide for psychological suffering.
Based on Kant's theory, I have found suicide morally unjust.
This case is about euthanasia and assisted suicide. On September 28, 1991, Dr. Boudewijn Chabot administered a sufficient amount of sleeping pills and a liquid drug mixture to a patient with the intentions of assisting the patient with death. The patient, Hilly Bosscher, was suffering from depression, and psychological pain. She was recently divorced from a 25 year abusive relationship, and her two son's had died. The doctor determined she suffered from unbearable pain, genuinely desired to die, and freely and competently made such a request. On the same day Dr. Chabot administered the medicine, Hilly took the concoction, and died.
In Deontology, the term itself leads us to the study of duty. Duty for Kant is the underlying role of morality. Our duty and intentions combine to form our will, and the only one thing in the world that is good is a good will. To act according to duty means we are acting according to principals, not according to the final outcome of our actions. Principals is another important factor in this theory, our actions must be congruent with principals that can be made universal. To be universal, the maxim must apply to absolutely everyone, everywhere, and anytime. Another stipulation in Kant's theory is that we should never treat a person solely as a means to our own ends. It is morally wrong to use someone solely to enhance our own self-interest.
The idea of universalizability strongly suits this case. To universalize the patient's individual maxim, we would see that most if not all will find suicide morally justifiable because everyone at times may feel depressed. At this point, we look at the duty to preserve life at all costs, and find we cannot universalize the patient's maxim. Kant was tempted with this maxim, but his will finds it...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document