“ Every individual deserves the right to rest in peace.” This quote is a great example of the debatable topic of euthanasia. Euthanasia is a painless hasty route to death for people suffering from incurable diseases. In 1605, Francis Bacon an English philosopher, reintroduced euthanasia to modern Western culture stating “prolonging life in cases of the incurable disease involves continued suffering for patients and their families” (Vecchio et al., 2012) . Although euthanasia is illegal, six states adopted Death with Dignity Law; California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington which allows mentally competent patients with six or fewer months to live to voluntarily request medication to fasten their inevitable disease process (Dignity, 2018) . Pain and suffering are known to be subjective in medicine; however, specific cancers are incurable diseases with an enormous amount of pain and suffering that can be indescribable. Euthanasia is debatable amongst those who believe it is morally and ethically wrong, conflicts with religion, legality aspects, and nature. This research paper will, therefore, discuss the medical ethics issue of euthanasia, and elaborate on various matters regarding euthanasia.
Technical Aspects
Euthanasia is also known as “mercy killing.” In this case, there is a third party who performs the act euthanasia has several different forms, whereby each has its technical controversy over what is right and what is wrong. Discussions related to euthanasia are fragile, and hence it is essential to differentiate the various forms of euthanasia that are typically used.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Assisted euthanasia is when a physician actively does something that helps someone die, and an example is when a physician administers lethal medication to the patient. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, involves a situation where a physician stops medical intervention that has been keeping the individual alive. It is also known as “letting die” (Dignity, 2018). For instance, a physician may decide to disable the live-saving machine connected to an individual in the ICU, hence withholding nutrition or respiratory support.
Active euthanasia can be voluntary or involuntary; voluntary euthanasia is when someone is alert and oriented and asks to die, and an example is when someone stops eating and refuses medical treatment. In this case, the individual is competent and therefore gives consent to the action causing their death. Non-voluntary euthanasia is a situation when a person is not alert and oriented and not capable of deciding for himself while indirect euthanasia is when a physician provides treatment for decreasing pain, which also fastens the patient’s death. This is mostly practiced when the individual in question is in a comma, and therefore does not have mental competence to provide informed consent to the action (Dignity, 2018).
Public Policy
Many are the times when the law aligns to human’s moral status. There are however other aspects that create tension between what individuals want to be enacted into law, and their ethical obligations. Euthanasia is a typical example of such issues, and although most people feel that active euthanasia is a logic cause of action, it is challenging to put in place safe public since there is another group of people who stand by the opinion that active euthanasia should not be legalized. Therefore, issues relating to Euthanasia are always filled with active debates, focusing on the practical problems relating to the death-causing action (Vecchio et al., 2012).
One of the main arguments in the favor for euthanasia is the autonomy concepts both in life and in death. As a result, there is a specific movement in the United States which seeks to have euthanasia legalized, and it is known as “right to die” movement. Those advocating for this position, are driven by the compassion for suffering endured during the end of life. Other supporting arguments focus on the right for self-determination, and the right for an individual to die with dignity. Moreover, euthanasia spares the family and friends the pain of seeing their relative undergoing severe suffering. Proponents of Euthanasia also cite that the same society that allows the putting down of animals to minimize pain should also allow the putting down of humans. Besides, why keep a patient alive when there is no hope for recovery? Most cases of life support are expensive, and hence proponents of euthanasia feel that is somewhat more logical to utilize the available resources on individuals who can live. Finally, with death being an individual matter, it is not right for the state to interfere, with the right for an individual to die (BBC, 2014).
The main argument against euthanasia is based on the Hippocratic Oath, in which physicians are injuncted not to cause harm to their patients. Physicians, doctors, and nurses are committed to saving lives, and therefore euthanasia would undermine this commitment. Further, the value and importance that the society places on life would be weakened, if at all euthanasia was to be legalized whereby those who are terminally ill would receive less deserved care. The essence of palliative care in the medical field is to ensure minimization of pain for the sick individuals and therefore making euthanasia unnecessary. The medical world is ever growing, with different advancements focused on saving life being made every day, and thus supporting euthanasia would discourage the development of new curative options for the terminally ill. Also, there is usually the possibility of recovery and euthanasia results in a situation where doctors are given too much power (BBC, 2014).
Another primary argument against euthanasia focuses on the role of religion in society. People who are not in favor of euthanasia believe it will cause more harm than good regarding religion and the natural process of dying. Opponents conclude that individuals will abuse euthanasia and not try to seek help. For example, people who are vulnerable to a new diagnosis, suffering from depression may feel that euthanasia is a more natural way versus seeking treatment that might save their life. Religion also is an argument for the opponents because many believe human life is sacred and no one should interfere in God’s plan. According to religion, life is a gift that God gave to the world, and therefore no individual has the authority to take an individual’s life even if they requested for it. Life preservation is essential in religion, and consequently, the promotion of euthanasia would mean that an individual’s current life is not worthwhile. Voluntary euthanasia itself is not advocated for in religion because no single person has the right to place a value on life. Moreover, the spirituality of the dying process is equally important, and hence interfering with the process may interrupt the process where spirits are thought to move towards God (Hajar, 2017).
Legalization of voluntary euthanasia would contribute to the legalization of involuntary euthanasia, hence adding to the slippery slope in euthanasia. In literal terms, the slippery slope argument establishes that allowing something relatively harmless into the society today may result in a situation whereby an unthinkable act is accepted. This is because, it is almost impossible to ensure that all actions relating to voluntary euthanasia are genuinely voluntary, and hence it is virtually impossible to provide that the legalization of such a law would not lead to its abuse. This may also result in the vulnerable people within the society, such as the distressed, lonely, elderly or sick feeling compelled to request for an early death. Moreover, it could result in involuntary euthanasia, where individuals who are viewed as a problem within the society are killed. There are however individuals who oppose this slippery slope argument citing that the formulation of tight legislation would keep everything under control (BBC, 2014).
Several states voted on the Death with Dignity Act that has torn communities on this controversial topic. The Death with Dignity Act supports patients who are suffering from pain who are competent to make such a decision. The Death with Dignity Act is controversial because many believe doctors took an oath to “heal and not to kill.” When doctors are assisting terminally ill patients with the use of euthanasia many opponents believe they are morally working against their sworn in duty. The classic Hippocratic Oath stated, “ abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous,” to “give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked ,” (Hajar, 2017). Many argue that the oath is outdated and does not offer any support to ethical and moral dilemmas like abortions, and euthanasia in today’s society.
Therefore, while the support for euthanasia won in several states, their reasons are significant and justifiable. As mentioned earlier, the pros of euthanasia include human rights, autonomy, and dignity. Proponents of euthanasia in the states that support it believe that it is a person’s right to die and the state should not get involved. For example, terminally ill patients do not want their families to see them deteriorate and their illness takes over their bodies, and they suffer. Many people who naturally go through the process becomes unrecognizable by the end of their death, and many families do not want their families to see them in this state. Proponents for euthanasia are thus protecting their individualism of dignity. Although we will all experience death, how can state officials direct the way someone should die without any experience? Pain and suffering are subjective, and only medical officials know that because they are at the patient’s bedside. Hence physicians are considered to be protecting their patients by alleviating their pain and suffering. In contrast, the cons of euthanasia are just as significant as its pros, and hence euthanasia is a crime in some states (Hajar, 2017).
Opinion and Conclusion
Euthanasia is a controversial topic that raises significant debates on human rights, legality aspect, and practical arguments. Despite the opposing views, one particular thing that every individual can agree to is the fact that it is a hard task to visualize undergoing a painful death, or watching a loved one suffer from such death. This is the part of the euthanasia debate that drives me to believe that euthanasia is right. Considering its uncertain status is difficult to determine whether euthanasia is right or wrong individually. In spite of profound arguments against euthanasia, I support the concept of the terminally ill patients to exercise their right to end their life, grounded on their inevitable disease process. However, this should be highly justifiable, by the patient, the family as well as the society. Terminal diseases are usually incurable and hence result in the death of the patient, in a painful, predictable and acceptable manner. In light of this argument, therefore, I would support the legalization of euthanasia, and its decriminalization, to ensure the patient’s rights and freedom are observed.
In conclusion, it is essential to consider the ethicality of euthanasia, mainly because the medical profession focuses on life protection, which euthanasia is against. The debate for or against euthanasia should discuss a variety of sides and not only the public opinion. Although doctors and nurse are called to protect life, they are also invited to alleviate suffering, which is the core purpose of euthanasia. The biggest issue currently affecting the debate is its slippery effects, as many opponents feel that legalization of euthanasia may result in a series of effects that leads to the death of people who would have otherwise survived (this involves a rapid change form voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia). The vulnerable and weak individuals have a right to receive care, but with the legislation of euthanasia, these people may not be able to receive quality care (Hajar, 2017). It is however also important to consider the socio-economic status of the current healthcare system, where the healthcare costs are rapidly escalating.
References
BBC. (2014). BBC - Ethics: Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/
Dignity, D. (2018). Death with Dignity Acts - States That Allow Assisted Death . [online] Death
With Dignity. Available at: https://www.deathwithdignity.org/learn/death-with-dignity- acts/
Hajar, R. (2017). The physician's oath: Historical perspectives. Heart Views , [online] 18(4), p.154. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5755201/.
Vecchio, I., Tornali, C., Rampello, L., Silvia R.G., Migliore, M.& Rampello, L. (2012). [online] Available at: http://www.actamedicamediterranea.com/archive/2012/medica-3/brief-history-of-euthanasia-and the-contribution-of-medical-and-surgical-ethics-to-the-cultural-debate/pdf
