The issue of the physicians assisting a critically ill patient to die as raised controversies in many areas including law and ethics. Euthanasia is mainly done by withdrawing treatment, removing from the life support machines or administer medications that can help terminate the life of the human. While some people argue that people have the right to choose how they die and the need to die with dignity thus calling for the need to legalize the act, there is a growing concern of ethics in euthanasia. All human beings have the right to life and care even when they are critically ill. Therefore, terminating the life of an individual goes against the human right to life and protection. Some have however insisted on the need to have autonomy and that it can lead to a good end of life. At the same time, people have the right to dignity and human life is sacred. The key role of the physicians is to provide the best care for the patients even at critically ill conditions and not to help terminate the life of another. Therefore, euthanasia remains unethical act within the nursing and medical profession because it denies people the right and dignity to life.
Math, S. B., & Chaturvedi, S. K. (2012). Euthanasia: the right to life vs. right to die. The Indian Journal of Medical Research, 136(6), 899.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Math and Chaturvedi (2012), elimination of the life of another human being is invalid and unethical. The practice of palliative care “can help provide relief to the people with distressing and painful symptoms and give them support” (6). In the article, the authors further note that the right to life is provided for in the constitution and by helping an individual to lose their lives, one is denying them the right to live. The physicians should emphasize providing the best care to the patients rather than assisting them to die as this goes against the ethics of the medical profession. It is therefore unethical and illegal to assist a critically ill person to die. I agree with the argument brought in the article because human beings have the right to life and therefore termination of life is unethical. This article is useful for future research because it provides a clear analysis of the issues surrounding euthanasia and why it is morally wrong.
Gail Van Norman, M. D. (2013). The Ethics of Ending Life: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, Part. CSA Bulletin, 66.
The author of the article presents passive euthanasia as a problematic term both in the legal and moral perspectives. The patients have the right to autonomy during their treatments, and that right must be respected. According to Gail Van (2013), “aspects such as withdrawal of treatment at the request of the patient is only meant to respect their rights and does not have any intention to kill thus issues of ethics does not arise” (80). Since the intention is to respect the autonomy and not to kill, the act of withdrawal of treatment does not amount to unethical conduct because it does not constitute killing because the initial primary intention is not death. I disagree with the author on this point because even though the intention of withdrawing treatment is not to kill, death is obviously the result when a critically ill patient is taken out of treatment. This article provides significant information on the issue of ethics and the intention to kill in euthanasia.
Nunes, R., & Rego, G. (2016). Clinical Research & Bioethics. Routledge.
According to Nunes and Rego (2016), the major controversy in the issue of euthanasia is the right to life and ethics of assisted murder. The authors present both sides of the arguments over the issue by noting that euthanasia can be morally right only when “the morally right to do on any occasion is whatever brings the greatest balance of happiness and unhappiness” (2). Also, the authors bring in the opposing argument by noting that the act is morally wrong under the provision that people have the right to life and that euthanasia goes against this right. Also, it is against the ethics of the medical profession. I agree with the view presented by the article because it provides valid and arguable opinions on the issue of euthanasia. This article is important for the research as it provides critical points on circumstances when one can argue that euthanasia is moral and immoral.
Harriss, I. (2005, September). Ethics and euthanasia: Natural law philosophy and latent utilitarianism. In 12th Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics, Adelaide (pp. 28-30).
According to Harris (2005), the issue of euthanasia presents two complex points of argument in which two rights contradict. “The issues involved are complex: what importance, for example, should be attached to the individual’s autonomy and the rights that seem to flow from that autonomy; and what ethical consequences flow from the assertion of the absolute and universal sanctity of all human life, regardless of the particular circumstances of a particular individual at a particular moment?” (1). It is unethical to assist in ending the life of an individual due to the right to life, yet at the same time, patients have the right to autonomy and choose how they are treated. I agree with the author that the issue is so complex because ethics comes in when one assists another person to die yet people have the right to life and also on the need to respect the right to autonomy of the individual patient. This information is useful and will add valuable information to the research to assist in understanding the topic.
Keown, J. (2018). Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: An argument against legalization. Cambridge University Press.
According to Keown (2018), modern societies are being faced with problems of whether to legalize euthanasia. Controlling the cases of euthanasia poses major challenges and ethics come into active play when viewed in the sense that people have the right to life. Keown notes that “rather than assisting critically ill patients to die, physicians should stick to their role and provide palliative care to help relieve pain and help improve the health outcome of the patients” (4). This is because the human has the right to live and any action that terminates life is unethical. I agree with the view of the author that palliative care can help improve the health outcome of patients and could be used instead of euthanasia. This information provides much value to the research topic and will be helpful in helping understand the connection between ethics and euthanasia.
References
Math, S. B., & Chaturvedi, S. K. (2012). Euthanasia: The right to life vs. right to die. The Indian Journal of Medical Research, 136(6), 899.
Keown, J. (2018). Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalization. Cambridge University Press.
Harriss, I. (2005, September). Ethics and euthanasia: Natural law philosophy and latent utilitarianism. In 12th Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics, Adelaide (pp. 28-30).
Gail Van Norman, M. D. (2013). The Ethics of Ending Life: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, Part. CSA Bulletin, 66.
Nunes, R., & Rego, G. (2016). Clinical Research & Bioethics. Routledge.
