Voluntary Euthanasia Peter Singer Summary

In Peter Singer’s peer-reviewed article, Voluntary Euthanasia: A Utilitarian Perspective, he argues that based on a Utilitarian philosophy, voluntary euthanasia should be legal. This article relies upon defining a Utilitarian perspective that leads him to his conclusion. He uses multiple thought experiments that are intended to open an alternate way of viewing the debate of euthanasia as well as data and statistics from Oregon and the Netherlands to support his claims. He includes the 19th century utilitarian, John Stuart Mill, who argues that individuals are “ultimately the best judges and guardians of their own interests”. Shown in his famous example, “if you see people about to cross a bridge you know to be unsafe, you may forcibly stop

529). He uses Mill’s example to show that individuals are their own best judges and guardians of interests, and insists that society should not interfere with individuals, and only should to prevent harm to others. Singer also mentions that patients who are terminally ill cannot rationally or autonomously choose euthanasia, as they are liable to be

Euthanasia as a response to life fatigue, uses the case of Brongersma as an example to show the challenges and evaluation of voluntary euthanasia, involving PAS of an individual who was simply ‘tired of life’. Legal officials had called upon the the courts to ‘set a principled boundary’, excluding such cases from the scope of permissible voluntary euthanasia, but they arguably failed. This failure is understood as the case seems justifiable by reference to the two major principles in favor of the practice, respect for autonomy, beneficence and individual well being. In April 1998, Dr Philip Sutorius assisted 86-year old Edward Brongersma to commit suicide. Brongersma was motivated by ‘life fatigue’ or ‘existential suffering’, and had no physical or mental illness. Sutorius was prosecuted for failing to observe one of the ‘due care criteria’ based upon Dutch policy. At the time euthanasia was prohibited and considered as a consensual killing as was assisted suicide. In the 1970s, the defence of ‘necessity’ was extended to encompass