Consequentialism is an ethical philosophy that determines whether something is right or wrong based on its repercussions. The consequentialist view of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has always had opponents and supporters. While there are scholars and researchers who believe that legalizing a given activity will be a so-called slippery slope, others believe that prohibiting it is a violation of fundamental rights and disregards human autonomy.
Support for independence and choice is commonly cited as a major motivation for legalizing physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. However, Dickinson et al. state that 80% of healthcare workers find the given practice not ethically justifiable (Dickinson et al., 2002). Meanwhile, several publications have argued that this is due to a misunderstanding of autonomy’s ethical importance (Sjöstrand et al., 2011). It has been claimed that if autonomy is correctly understood as a value, then assisted suicide and euthanasia are both unethical since they damage the patient’s rights.
Sjöstran et al. explore the argument of autonomy by delving into the idea of its value. Beginning with the present discussion in end-of-life healthcare, two distinct perspectives of how autonomy is valued were examined. The scholars examined one argument where euthanasia and PAS could be against the best interest of patients and a second argument where euthanasia implies a right to uphold autonomy (Sjöstrand et al., 2011). As a result, Sjöstran et al. determined that neither line of argument can be utilized since not all cases of PAS or euthanasia can be considered acceptable, and the harmful consequences outweigh these arguments.
On the contrary, Weinstock perceives harm reduction without focusing on other views. The concept of harm reduction has grown both horizontally to apply to a wider variety of policy areas and vertically to become part of the official socioeconomic and regulatory debate (Weinstock, 2020). In his work, Weinstock states that deliberate harm reduction effectively accounts for some of the most appealing aspects of harm minimization and offers a credible manner of reasoning for the justificatory principles and limitations of harm reduction (Weinstock, 2020). Weinstock stresses consequentialist concerns to regulate and control the activity rather than descend the pointless route of determining whose view is accurate about the ethical implications of the conduct.
On the other hand, the last argument proves that relying solely on consequences can violate people’s rights and freedoms. In Smith’s paper, a slippery slope argument is taken into consideration. It is seen as fallacious because it rejects a plan of action, despite a lack of proof (Smith, 2005). PAS and euthanasia would be believed to generate a domino effect that will ultimately lead to an undesired result. Smith claimed that the slippery slope argument opposing PAS and euthanasia is fully consequentialist (Smith, 2005). As a result, using it to support the restriction of voluntary euthanasia includes failing to treat people who seek help in terminating their lives as ends in themselves.
Hence, the consequentialist argument that focuses on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide stresses the importance of the repercussions of the given practice. On the one hand, the researchers found that the given activity is a slippery slope and should be regulated and prohibited due to its negative impact on society and the pointlessness of ethical implications. On the other hand, others viewed this argument as unnecessary due to a violation of human autonomy and failure to comply with their wills.