Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing , is the termination of the life of a person who has suffered for long. The subject stirred a great debate, with countries having to set up laws on euthanasia. Euthanasia has controversy surrounding it, especially on whether it could be an avenue to infringe on the right to life of the sick. In the United States, for instance, there is a distinction between the two types of euthanasia; passive and active. Passive euthanasia entails withdrawal of life support, which when requested by the patient, is legal for the doctor to do. Active euthanasia, which is condemned by the American Medical Association, is a deliberate action by physicians to end the patient’s life, such as by administration of a lethal drug ( Paterson et al., 2015)
Euthanasia is also classified as voluntary, non-voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is the most known, where the patient willingly accepts to die. It is the type that is legal in many countries, including Luxembourg, Belgium, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Oregon and Washington ( Chambaere et al., 2015) . The non-voluntary type is administered to person who is not able to give consent because of their severe health condition. A consensus is reached upon by relatives or any other appropriate parties. Involuntary euthanasia is a crime, and it is where a patient who can give their opinions is ignored, and their life terminated without their consent.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Technical Aspect of Euthanasia
With technological advancement and modernized medicine, doctors have been put at crossroads on whether death should be left to occur naturally or not. Modern medicine has increased chances of survival for patients, yet is at the same time likely to be used to accelerate death. Presence of a wide range of drugs, chemotherapy, opioids and life support machines has given doctors the power to save more lives. This brings into the light "the hypocritical oath “taken by all medical practitioners. They swear that they will do whatever they can, as long as it is within their capacity to save human lives, and will not accelerate or deliberately contribute to the death of their patients in any way ( Fletcher et al., 2015) . This oath has been the center of euthanasia, as the public has used this as the headline to condemn euthanasia. Patients who would have died earlier can now survive for longer, and this brings the question on the timing for mercy killing. Doctors are faced with a dilemma, especially when families can’t seem to agree on the fate of the patient.
According to Emanuel et al., (2016), the requirements for euthanasia include 18 years of age and above. If not so, parents/guardians give consent after consulting the patient. The patient must be a resident of the particular State, and mentally stable. The outmost condition is that the patient must be suffering from a chronic disease that has been foreseen to cause death in the next six months. The doctor must also be licensed in a particular state, and have a valid United States Drug Enforcement Administration certificate. The diagnosis must be verified by another physician, who also confirms the mental stability of the patient. The patient must also be informed of other options such as palliative care and pain management. For euthanasia to be conducted, the patient must make two oral requests and a written request.
Voluntary termination of life is in two forms. The doctor either gives a fatal dose of a particular drug to the patient, and then they die peacefully. In assisted suicide, the doctor provides the lethal drug then the patient takes or injects it. For both forms of euthanasia, physicians must fulfill the statutory due care criteria. The facts must then be reported a regional review committee, which will decide if it was done the right way. Other forms of euthanasia, especially without consent, are all illegal and have landed doctors in court, penalties being as much as 12 years in prison for unlawful procedure during euthanasia and up to 3 years for wrongfully assisting suicide.
Public Policy on Euthanasia
California, Colorado, Washington, Hawaii, Montana, and Oregon states have legalized euthanasia, either through court rulings or legislation. The principles of the sanctity of life, prohibition against killing, autonomy, and the common good are the basis of this debate. Public policy on medical treatment has given patients a choice and independence. The cases of euthanasia are increasing due to this. The r ight of mentally stable adults to make informed decisions about their medical care is also an area of concern, as it has resulted in people who would have otherwise survived for longer fearing to endure a prolonged death while supported by life-sustaining machines. The do-not-resuscitate policy on euthanasia patients dictates that no interference from outside should force the healthcare provider to resuscitate a patient once euthanasia is done, which is a contradiction on the sanctity of life. One specific writer who has been aggressive in addressing this issue is John Keown (2018) who analyses legal and political developments in the Netherlands specifically. According to Keown, the guidelines formulated in 1984 regarding euthanasia are not candid, and different individuals will interpret them differently. For instance, the instructions do not state the specific diseases should be allowed for euthanasia. For this reason, malice may occur as a rogue medical practitioner stretch the rules.
Personal Opinion on Euthanasia
In my opinion, euthanasia should be allowed. Instead of prolonged suffering, patients who feel they are ready to die should be given the right. It is only them who can tell the amount of pain they feel and how much of the suffering they can take. Furthermore, they could think that the family is expensing too much for their medical bills, yet they will die in the long run. As long as they are of sound mind, have taken advice from necessary parties, their families are ready to allow them, and the patient feels it is time they ended their suffering, euthanasia should be administered. However, families should not take advantage of sickness to fasten someone’s death by pressuring them into euthanasia to fulfill their greed. Medical practitioners should, therefore, perform background checks and question the patients to ensure the decision is made willingly.
Conclusion
Organizations that are pro-life have opposed euthanasia since they view it as an unnatural way to end life. They believe that with improved technology and medicine, it is best to let the patients with chronic illnesses be placed under palliative care until natural death takes cause. Religious organizations are also against euthanasia, as they argue God gives the patients grace to endure the suffering until their time for departure comes.
All these said, the topic of euthanasia is still subject to debate, leaving the role to jurisdictions to rule it right or wrong. Governments are left to decide whether euthanasia is legal or illegal within their area of jurisdiction. No rule covers the whole world and gives a definite answer to whether it should be carried out or banned.
References
Chambaere, K., Vander Stichele, R., Mortier, F., Cohen, J., & Deliens, L. (2015). Recent trends in euthanasia and other end-of-life practices in Belgium. New England Journal of Medicine , 372 (12), 1179-1181.
Emanuel, E. J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Urwin, J. W., & Cohen, J. (2016). Attitudes and practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Jama , 316 (1), 79-90.
Fletcher, J. F. (2015). Morals and Medicine: the moral problems of the patient's right to know the truth, contraception, artificial insemination, sterilization, euthanasia . Princeton University Press.
Keown, J. (2018). Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalization . Cambridge University Press.
Paterson, C. (2017). Assisted suicide and euthanasia: a natural law ethics approach . Routledge.
