A utilitarian would respond to the issue by focusing solely on the outcome of the procedure. As per, John Stewart Mill's theory for happiness, for an action to be moral, it must bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. He even goes ahead to state that sacrificing one's personal suffering can be morally acceptable if the action brings about the greatest happiness overall. He states that for people to act in a Utilitarian way, an action must bring about a good consequence which increases happiness and pleasure and diminishes pain; "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce reverse of happiness". (1859) Thus, according to his theory, voluntary euthanasia can produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. For instance, if an individual is …show more content…
In addition to this, material resources and medical staff expected to keep patients alive whose death is certain, can be utilised for patients who are suffering from curable diseases. Subsequently, because doctors are actively causing the death of instead of passively watching, this promotes utility, and accordingly, happiness by eradicating pain from the patient, family and society. However, some would contend that deliberately ending the life of an individual is immoral, however, some utilitarians would argue that to decide whether an act is acceptable is aggregated by the level of happiness in society. For example, if an individual with an irreversible illness commits euthanasia, then their family will have closure and go back to their daily work lives, which would promote happiness in the community. In like manner, many people cannot afford the expenses of keeping a terminally ill patient alive, and to do so places a great burden on other members of the