This paper examines whether euthanasia can be justified from a moral and ethical standpoint. It argues that social workers could use the various ethical perspectives to rationalize euthanasia, especially in cases of extreme suffering.

             Peter Singer, the foremost proponent of utilitarianism, argues that there would be cases where euthanasia is perfectly moral and ethical. In his book Writings on an Ethical Life (2001), Singer argues that, "the idea of an ethical system carries with it "the notion of something bigger than the individual" (15). As a general principle, Singer proposes that ones actions are ethical insofar as they are compatible with universal interests and produce the "best consequences" for the greatest number of people.

             Singer's utilitarianism is characterized by a calculation of interests. A person suffering from pain, especially those who are terminally ill, have a strong interest to be free from pain. This should be weighed against the interests of a society in keeping a person who is in pain alive. In this case, there would be little benefit to society as compared to the individual's right to be free from pain and to make autonomous decisions. According to singer's utilitarianism, euthanasia is therefore the ethical choice.

             The weakness of the utilitarian position, however, lies in the difficulty of subjecting all cases -- regardless of their complexity or cultural context -- to a single standard. Richard Hugman (2003) contributes by discussing a "discursive model of ethics." In this ethical tradition, people are communicative actors who are able to come to an agreement on "the greater good" through a well-reasoned argument. Thus, while it may be difficult to agree on standards when euthanasia would be acceptable, it is still not impossible to come up with socially-approved guidelines for the ethics of euthanasia.

             Sarah Banks (2004) writes on the practical application of these ethics, with a special focus on the caring professions.