Essay: Should Medical Assistance in Dying be allowed for Refractory Mental Health Patients? (argumentative essay)

Should They Allow Medical Assistance in Dying for Refractory Mental Health Patients?
This paper intends to use the principle of a utilitarian to conduct an ethical argumentative essay on the decision made by CAMH that the federal government should refrain from amending the MAID legislation for people who are mentally ill. The CAMH argues that mentally sick people show remediable medical condition which provides no substantive reason for the amendments of MAID. Furthermore, the paper is divided into an overview of the CAMH’S MAID debates, followed by the description of the general ethical principle of utilitarianism. The subsequent parts include an in-depth validation of the decision of CAMH using the moral principle of utilitarian. The last section is a conclusive part that summarizes the main ideas of this paper as well as reaffirming my decision that CAMH made the most proficient decision which goes obliges with basic utilitarian principles.
June 2017 the Empowerment Council together with the Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) staged the discussion on whether the MAiD legislation should be sanctioned for the sake of those with severe and refractory mental illnesses (Tanner, 2018). However, as much the ability to take one’s own life is a relief to many people suffering from mental illnesses, the Bill C-14 did not allow the people induced personal death for anybody who is suffering from mental disorders (Tanner, 2018). Some mentally ill people posed a request to suspend the amendment of the MAiD that allowed them to take their own life with the hope of future recovery. However, very many people who suffer the same mental disorders still places pressure to pass the MAiD decision. Despite the constant pressure to pass MaiD, the lawmakers take special care to rethink and reevaluate the right to die policies for those with a psychological disorder. The lawmakers and mental health professional still opt to factors in the thoughts of the psychologically challenged individuals who gradually or have hopes of future recovery despite the pressure from the family members or several mentally ill people to pass the MAiD law (Sheehan, Gaind, & Downar, 2017).
Mills (2016) advanced the principle of utilitarianism, and it focuses on the greatest happiness. It is also referred to as the principle of utilitarianism. Mills believed that an action should be made as long as it avails happiness to the majority of the people. Mills referred to this state as the maximizing the general utility or happiness (Mill, 2016). Therefore, in simple understanding, the principle is about normative ethics where the joy of the majority is highly factored. On the other hand, it is an ethical principle of defining the morality of the action chosen as evident by John Mill and Jeremy Bentham (Mill, 2016). Hence, the principle of happiness states that a moral action to be made should factor the majority of the people. Therefore, applying the utilitarian principle to nullify the MAiD legislation is as follows.
First, the ethical principle of utilitarianism suggests that the overall action should benefit the majority of the people (Conway & Gawronski, 2013). Tentatively, very many states have not passed a law that allows people to be allowed to kill themselves. Hence, this indicates that many people believe that having the right to kill oneself is not a good idea. Moreover, people suffering from mental disorders are human beings who deserve to live like other people. Thus, as much as some people may wish that they are allowed to kill themselves is quite unethical. The lawmakers should consider the fact that some of the people who are mentally ill were not born with a mental challenge.
On the other hand, some people who were born mentally challenged have never wished to die. Hence, some of both acquired and inborn mental disordered individuals are trying to fight with the condition and for this reason, inducing their death through legislation becomes unethical to them. Therefore, as affirmed by the principle, propagating the death of the psychological disorder do not fit the minority of the people diagnosed of the condition and the very many friends, relatives and well-wishers who opt the quick personal recovery.
Secondly, there is no evidence from the majority of the people who supports MAiD. Ideally, the principle suggests that the greatest good should focus on the greatest number. Therefore, there are no substantive number of primary researches that have interviewed or question the mentally ill individuals to prove that most of them wish to pursue their death (Hewitt, 2013). Additionally, Mills and Bentham hold that utility implies any object or property that gives happiness, pleasant, pleasure, advantage, benefit or hampers evil, unhappiness, or mischief (Mill, 2016). In this respect, it is prudent that the life of the mentally ill people should be spared because inducing killing is evil in most society.
Furthermore, the death of mentally ill people would cause pain, displeasure or unhappiness to those who are their loved ones or anybody who may have wished the people eventual recovery. For instance, spouses or children of the mentally ill personals who show signs of a refractory or severe condition may not cause a lot of pain and agony to the family members. Additionally, in case the mentally ill person has cost a lot in the quest to see them recovery eventually decides to kill himself or herself because he or she sees no future of recovery can cause a lot of unhappiness and regrets to the family members.
Thirdly, the principle of utilitarianism is one of the relativistic as well as the technological theory that focuses on the consequences of the action before it is made (Conway, & Gawronski, 2013). Tentatively, the theory holds that the result should be good and in case it is bad, it should be avoided which is directly what the CAMH decided (to revoke the legislation). Therefore, the motives of the people pushing the law that intends to allow the people to kill themselves in case one is mentally diagnosed. The people urging the federal government and mental health professionals to see the MAiDs legislation succeeding are focusing on their personal or mentally ill peoples’ motives as they disregard the outcome examination (Sheehan, Gaind, & Downar, 2017). The principle of utilitarianism does not work with the motive based kind of thinking, but instead, it focuses on the overall consequences on the majority of the people. Thus, the key stakeholders of the bill should base their reasoning on the outcome that the norms and ethics do not validate any form of self-induced killing.
In summary, this paper used the ethical principle to validate or backup the decision of the CAMH report that dismissed or invalidate the reason for passing the MAiD. Ideally, the principle holds that there are no permanent, static or fixed moral principles and that the significant feature of the principle is the Hedonic calculus (Mill, 2016). Bentham equivocated happiness and utility or pain avoidance and pleasure. He found out that happiness is widely sanctioned and gratified and that all people are hedonistic (Mill, 2016). Hedonistic implies that nature turns either men or women sovereign masters of both pleasure and pain (Mill, 2016). Furthermore, I believe that Bentham’s calculus of hedonism places the government, mental health professional, and forefront of the MAiD in a sovereign state of pain and pleasure. Thus, I believe that the hedonic calculus uses pure quantitative hedonic which aligns with the decision of revoking MAiD by CAMH and other key people of the same interest.
The study and analysis of CAMH proved that happiness succeeded in the overall pain of passing the law. Furthermore, an evaluation of the intensity and duration of the pain was found to be more than the happiness, and therefore happiness was preferred as evident by some of the mentally ill persons who opt for recovery. Thus, whether or not the principle of utility applies for any action that is deemed suitable as evident from the overall consequences of any phenomenon. CAMH holds that the Canadian federal government to revoke the bill of MAID was a bold movie and that the decision factored the implication on the psychiatric patients. Hence, I agree that the choice of CAMH to upend MAID legislation since mentally ill people have the possibilities of recovering as much as the situation may be intolerable with a lot of psychological suffering. Safeguarding the life of the mentally ill individuals must be upheld to ensure that sufficient recovery treatments are conducted beyond sustaining their life; this would then make the patients die their routine death but not induced.