Euthanasia is a very pertinent issue which draws both ethical and moral concerns. The major bone of contention revolves around determining whether it is morally or ethically appropriate to take a patient's life as an act of mercy. People who ascribe to pro-life ideologies tend to believe in the sanctity of life and that it is immoral to take a person's life and also unethical for a doctor to take their patient's life since it will contravene their Hippocratic Oath. On the other side of the divide, there is a faction referred to as the pro-choice that believes in people being given the autonomy to decide what they desire to do with their lives. However, before making moral judgments about euthanasia, it is imperative to incorporate both consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories.
Consequentialist Considerations
When pondering over the merits and demerits of Euthanasia, two competing interests come up. The first one is to ensure that an individual's wishes are respected and the other is the moral perspective which attempts to provide safeguards which limit the enjoyment of the individual's wishes. In order to discuss the moral significance of voluntariness, utilitarians would evaluate the consequences of the patient's actions before giving their moral judgment. Voluntariness in this context will only be considered to the extent with which it enhances or deters a person from being happy. Most people desire to have a say in how they end their lives and therefore according to patients with this opportunity will be deemed moral because it brings out happiness as well as peace of mind. From a utilitarian perspective, it would be necessary for the individual to consider the ramifications of their intentions both towards themselves and others before engaging in euthanasia. As long as a particular decision brings out the greatest happiness in terms of reducing the mental torture of seeing a loved one in tremendous pain and suffering or even alleviating the financial burden of treatment would be deemed morally okay since it results in better consequences.
Nonconsequentialist Considerations
The voluntary aspect of Euthanasia tends to resonate to the moral norm or a nonconsequentialist reason. This assertion is premised on the notion that having the liberty to make one's decision is essentially good and thus contains strong elements of morality. In order to advance, this train of thought further one would draw lessons from the Kantian ideology that having the autonomy to make decisions affecting one's life needs to be respected. Therefore it would seem that at first instance the fact that a patient who wants to die courtesy of Euthanasia is free to do as they please.
However, people need to be alive to the fact that there are some instances where a patient neurological and cognitive competence might be compromised by a raft of factors such as depression, erroneous diagnosis or even fear of the unknown. At times patients might want to fight for their lives but are rendered hopeless because of negative thoughts and comments about their condition. This inadvertently ends up killing their morale as well as their zeal to pursue alternative treatment. These factors that negatively influence a patient's choice can be deemed to be clouding an individual's autonomy. According to the Kantian ideology might end up making the decision immoral.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I find the consequentialist theory such as utilitarianism more plausible. This is because it makes more sense for a patient to consider the merits and demerits of their actions before opting for or against Euthanasia. Utilitarianism ensures that a patient has critically considered the competing interests before deciding to end their life.
