The Global Fate of Euthanasia - Essay Example

of the of the of the Euthanasia Legalization of euthanasia is morally unacceptable. The most compelling cause for this controversy is that a medical intervention to end a life is effected without the consent of the patient. This endangers the sanctity of human life. This work establishes that this cause vindicates the stance that legalization of euthanasia is morally unacceptable. Active non – voluntary euthanasia can be described as a medical intervention to end life without the consent of the patient. In addition, there is the medical intervention of passive non – voluntary euthanasia, in which medical treatment or life support is withheld or withdrawn from the patient (Pakes 121). This is done without the request of the patient and has the objective of ending the patient’s life. Moreover, there is what is termed as physician assisted suicide, wherein a lethal substance is prescribed, prepared or given to a patient by a doctor. Such substances are to be administered by the patient and have the purpose of facilitating the patient to commit suicide. The last of these interventions relates to the doctrine of double effect, in which drugs in very large dosages are administered to the patient. The ostensible reason behind this intervention is to mitigate the pain and suffering of the patient (Pakes 121). However, death accompanies the alleviation of suffering, even though the intention is not to end the life of the patient. As such, legalization of Euthanasia is morally unacceptable. It is essential to distinguish between active and passive euthanasia. This is due to the reason that active euthanasia involves the deliberate intent to end life. Euthanasia has adverse consequences; such as, abuse potential, whereby a definite and easy procedure is provided for eliminating an objectionable relative (Shannon 108). Moreover, the predictions of even the highly skilled and competent doctors, in the area of diagnosis of disease may not be fulfilled, and passing judgment on medically futility could in reality prove to be useless (Shannon 108). Decisions regarding the end of life, which were based on the opinions of health professionals, proved to be wrong on several occasions. Frequently, it had been observed that at the time of death, medical end of life decisions had been made before the death of the patient. These decisions cover a wide range of objectives, such as the reduction of symptoms and pain, and non – treatment decisions to the injection of drugs that would have a fatal result (Gevers 359). When it comes to measures that have the intention of directly accelerating death, the accompanying controversy is at its highest. These measures are adopted consequent to a specific request by the patient; or in the event of no such request from the patient, as a medical intervention for alleviating unbearable suffering, which fails to respond to less drastic measures (Gevers 360). In general, patients for whom palliative sedation is being seriously considered, tend to be in a situation where they are being injected with morphine, in order to provide them with relief from pain or dyspnea. In such cases, there will be an overwhelming inducement to increase the morphine dosage, so that unconsciousness followed by death will take place (Legemaate, Verkerk and van Wijlick 63). A major and compelling objection to active voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide is that these interventions entail the killing of an individual, which is morally unjustifiable. The Holy Bible unequivocally declares in the Sixth Commandment of the Old Testament that it is wrong to kill. From the secular perspective it is unacceptable to kill people (Browne). Moreover, in order to justify acts that provide good and bad results at the same time, the doctrine of double effect is employed. Considerable use has been made of this doctrine in debates relating to end of life decisions that apparently provide relief to the patient, while bringing about their demise. The undesirable outcome is the death of the patient, which is in general effected by the use of opiates in large doses. This doctrine has been chiefly used for promoting the acceptance of end of life decisions that appear to reduce life, for instance heavy sedation (Allmark, Liddle and Tod). Moreover, it has also been utilized to contend that euthanasia is unacceptable. On being compared with the post mortem report, it has been observed that clinical diagnosis tends to be wrong to the extent of 40%. Despite the advent of modern medical tools, medical diagnosis has not improved to any appreciable extent, during the past half century (Fenigsen, Other Peoples Lives: Reflections on Medicine, Ethics, and Euthanasia: Part Two: Medicine Versus Euthanasia 57). Consequently, a wrong diagnosis of a fatal disease is a terrifying possibility in the present situation. Thus, doctors are forced to rely on a diagnosis that is not certain but only probable, and on such diagnosis the life of the patient hangs. Therefore, ending the life of a patient on the basis of a medical diagnosis that could subsequently prove to be defective is not only iniquitous but also illogical (Fenigsen, Other Peoples Lives: Reflections on Medicine, Ethics, and Euthanasia: Part Two: Medicine Versus Euthanasia 58). Inter alia, the contention is that sedation, by itself, does not cause the death of the patient; and that the sedation level and treatment with opioids and other drugs, is proportionate to the amount of required symptoms control. All the same, a patient who is not on the verge of death could experience a shortening of life, due to the withdrawal of fluids. Consequently, those who oppose continuous deep sedation have termed it as nothing more than a camouflaged form of euthanasia (Lindblad, Juth and Fürst 527). This accusation is justified as the principal objective of continuous deep sedation is to bring about a quickening of the death of the patient. Euthanasia is a process in which the life of patient is ended. It is generally accepted that killing the sick, in the absence of their consent is tantamount to murder. The government does not initiate legal action against the physicians and medical personnel who indulge in this activity. This situation prevails in the United States and many Western countries. In these countries, health care workers conduct such activity against the elderly people. There is no country in the world that has as its national objective, the limiting of the life span of its citizens. All the same, such policy is encouraged by several leaders of the community (Fenigsen 85). The second significant cause of the controversy is that, due to legalization of Euthanasia, patients would be subject to considerable pressure to request euthanasia, so that their families would no longer be subjected to distress. This could place patients in a dilemma. On allowing euthanasia, there would be a gradual but inexorable movement to permit it initially for the terminally ill, then the aged, the demented who are beyond cure, the idiots and convicted murderers. Life sustaining medical technology has made rapid strides and this has rekindled interest in euthanasia. Factors like the fear of being kept alive, in conjunction with the extension of anesthetics to render death easier have contributed to this new found interest in euthanasia (Shannon 109). It is quite possible that individuals could entertain the desire to end their life at a time of their choosing, instead of exhausting their financial resources to sustain a life that no longer holds any attraction to them. Moreover, such individuals would also prefer that such amounts should be allocated for the benefit of their family members or deserving members of their community (Malpas, Mitchell and Johnson 71). Many individuals have lived by making authentic choices and taking decisions for themselves and those for whom they care deeply. Such people find it difficult, if not impossible, to become a burden to others in the last stages of their life (Malpas, Mitchell and Johnson 71). It has been claimed by scholars like Donnelly that legalizing euthanasia would impose societal pressure on the vulnerable sections, like the disabled, to end their life (Malpas, Mitchell and Johnson 72). Moreover, there is great danger inherent in legalizing euthanasia. It would without any doubt whatsoever cause irreparable harm to the societal value of respect for life. In addition, it would transform beyond recognition, the fundamental principle that we must not kill one another. Moreover, euthanasia on being legalized would cause unimaginable harm to law and medicine (Somerville A. 7). In fact, medicine could be compromised to the extent that people would be terrified to seek treatment. The third compelling cause of the controversy is that patients would lose trust in the medical system due to legalization of euthanasia. For example, in one research study, 66 patients with cancer in a palliative phase were interviewed. The aim of this endeavor was to determine their opinion regarding euthanasia, in the context of patient autonomy. After subjecting these opinions to qualitative content analysis, the following results were obtained (Karlsson, Milberg and Strang 34). The majority of the respondents could neither support nor oppose euthanasia, and this was due to the intricacy of the problem. However, these individuals were concerned with the fact that decision making was influenced by trust and power. They also believed that the legalization of euthanasia would increase the power of the healthcare staff to the detriment of the patients. Many of these respondents experienced dependence on others and held varying levels of trust in the intention of others (Karlsson, Milberg and Strang 34). Hence, this study disclosed that the terminally ill did not experience total independence, which is essential for decision making that is truly autonomous. Thus, it can be surmised that legalizing euthanasia would create severe problems to the vulnerable patients as the power would shift to healthcare professionals from the patients, at the time of taking decisions of life and death regarding these patients. Although, these three causes provide a strong argument against legalizing euthanasia; the reason that medical intervention, which results in the death of the patient, is the most compelling. This is due to the fact that most of the euthanasia deaths occur due to the direct or indirect intervention of the healthcare professionals. Therefore, if euthanasia were to be legalized, then many more such deaths could be expected to take place. The danger resulting from this outcome would be much greater than that from the other reasons. Works Cited Allmark, Peter, B Jane Liddle and Angela Mary Tod. "Is the doctrine of double effect irrelevant in end-of-life decision making?" Nursing Philosophy 11.3 (2010): 170 – 171. Print. Browne, Alister. "Understanding Euthanasia: Should Canadians Amend the Criminal Code?" July 1994. Web. 12 October 2012. . Fenigsen, Richard. "Other Peoples Lives: Reflections on Medicine, Ethics, and Euthanasia. Part Two: Medicine Versus Euthanasia." Issues in Law & Medicine 28.1 (2012): 71 – 87. Print. —. "Other Peoples Lives: Reflections on Medicine, Ethics, and Euthanasia: Part Two: Medicine Versus Euthanasia." Issues in Law & Medicine 27.1 (2011): 51 – 70. Print. Gevers, S. "Terminal Sedation: A Legal Approach." European Journal of Health Law 10.4 (2003): 359 – 367. Print. Karlsson, Marit, Anna Milberg and Peter Strang. "Dying cancer patients own opinions on euthanasia: An expression of autonomy? A qualitative study." Palliative Medicine 26.1 (2011): 34 – 42. Print. Legemaate, J, et al. "Palliative Sedation in The Netherlands: Starting-points and Contents of a National Guideline." European Journal of Health Law 14.1 (2007): 61 – 73. Print. Lindblad, Anna, et al. "Continuous deep sedation, physician-assisted suicide, and euthanasia in Huntington’s disorder." International Journal of Palliative Nursing 16.11 (2010): 527 – 533. Print. Malpas, Phillipa J, Kay Mitchell and Malcolm H Johnson. "Response to Dr Sinead Donnellys Debates on euthanasia editorial." The New Zealand medical journal 125.1359 (2012): 71 – 72. Print. Pakes, Francis. "Under Siege: The Global Fate of Euthanasia and Assisted-Suicide Legislation." European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law & Criminal Justice 13.2 (2005): 119 – 135. Print. Shannon, Thomas Anthony. Death and Dying: A Reader. Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. Print. Somerville, Margaret. "The case against euthanasia." The Windsor Star 3 July 2008: A. 7. Print. Read More