Euthanasia Mercy Killing - Essay Example

& No Euthanasia (Mercy Killing) 02 March Introduction Life is the most precious possession any personcan have. Once a person dies, there is no more coming back, unless one believes in reincarnation. In other words, there are no more second chances because death is final. And it is the finality of death that makes people cling to life at all costs, no matter what. There are also many instances of people who supposedly died but came back to tell their tales – the so-called near-death experience (NDE). However, this is quite controversial as there is no reliable way for science to check out and verify these claims. Major religions of the world favor the continuance of life in practically most instances with a very few exceptions where the taking of life can be justified. Religious laws are quite absolute about the prohibition against taking a life, whether one's own life or that of another person. In the eyes of God, anyone who takes life commits a grave mortal sin. However, great strides and advances in medical science and technology now allow the person to prolong life by artificial methods. This technological achievement is unprecedented in the history of mankind. For the first time ever, Man can now “play God” because he has a power to extend a life whenever he wants to. Regrettably, present laws and jurisprudence has not kept up with these medical advances. The result is often confusing as there are no rules to guide us by. In the same manner, ethics (in particular, biological ethics or bio-ethics) likewise has not been able to deal with complex medical issues. Euthanasia or mercy killing is just one bio-medical issue that has hounded healthcare professionals and legal practitioners alike. The questions regarding euthanasia are many and very convoluted; there are no easy answers here. This paper re-visits and examines the issue of euthanasia from a legal perspective. Discussion There are many biological and medical issues that are not being resolved satisfactorily by the present state of our medical ethics today. Besides euthanasia, other examples that legal and medical experts alike grapple with are abortion, surrogate motherhood, organ transplants, brain death and end-of-life care (palliative medicine). The basic questions facing all ethicists can be generalized into a few categories, such as: how is life to be measured and determined (that life exists), who will judge whether a person should live or die, what constitutes proof of death and when should heroic medical intervention be withheld from a patient? The ultimate question is who has the right to live and the right to die? Even dying can be considered as one of the more basic human rights – that is, the right to die with dignity intact. Euthanasia – in plain and simple language, euthanasia means mercy killing. There are many situations in which euthanasia seems to be justified, such as when a person is suffering from an incurable and terminal disease and is very likely to suffer in great pain. Literally, the meaning of euthanasia in Greek is a “good and easy death” to relieve pain and suffering. Even the British House of Lords had deemed it appropriate to give a precise definition for it – “this is a deliberate intervention to end a life with express intention to relieve intractable suffering.” While people are still healthy, it is easy to be detached about all the debates on euthanasia but a time will come when a person has to face it and its consequences. The controversy surrounding euthanasia has been made more complicated because of the earlier practice of eugenics which is medical science applied to improving the composition of genetics in a human population (Appel, 2004, p. 611). Eugenics fell into disrepute because it was employed by the Nazis in their desire to attain a high level of purity of the Aryan races. There were several abuses committed such as forced sterilization, human experiments and the extermination of undesirable groups of people (compulsory or involuntary euthanasia). At its height of popularity, eugenics enjoyed a big following even among intellectuals and academic giants, such as Winston Churchill, H. G. Wells, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes and Linus Pauling. The plausible reason for this weird acceptance was that eugenics derived most of its principles from findings of Charles Darwin in his theory of evolution. Basically, eugenics advocated for the promotion and reproduction of people who were considered to possess superior physical traits while preventing the people with defective or inferior biological traits from reproducing themselves. Practices of eugenics included violations of privacy, attacks on reputation, violation of the right to life, the rights to have a family, compulsory sterilizations and blatant racial or ethnic discrimination. However, like euthanasia also, eugenics is getting a second look among academics. It is because recent medical and scientific advances pertaining to genetics, genomics and also in human reproductive technologies have changed the perceptions about eugenics as something that is socially abhorrent to something that is desirable again. Advances in genetic engineering that were used to produce the genetically-modified organisms (plants and animals) are equally applicable today to humans through selective breeding, such as prenatal screenings. Euthanasia has undergone a revival of sorts because of medical advances. The ancient Greeks and Romans practiced euthanasia. Sparta and Athens exposed newborn babies to the elements to test their strength and only those who survived were allowed to live. The Romans also practiced infanticide by drowning deformed babies in the Tiber River. In effect, these two ancient civilizations practiced a combined form of eugenics and euthanasia because these very people thought it would be unfair and expensive to let people with disabilities live in society. These deformed persons were seen as a drag on other healthy people and should be dealt with immediately rather than prolonging their agonies. Euthanasia had been discussed and debated extensively by early Greek philosophers but it has evolved today (Mystakidou, 2005, p. 98). Current Debates – from its early forms during the ancient Greek and Roman societies, euthanasia today is no longer just about life and death; it has evolved into answering a prime question of the type of death a person can choose: an agonized death or a peaceful death. The traditional philosophical stance is that everyone has the right to live no matter what. However, most philosophical discussions deliberately avoided or skirted the issue of the right to die for most people. In other words, the euthanasia debates today are more on defining the ethical and moral rights of an individual's right to die. Previously, a person has the right to die, that is, of a natural cause such as old age (“Immortal Humans,” 2010, p. 1). What is implicitly denied to a person is the right to choose his own death, especially for those who have a terminal illness or has a mental incapacity to decide (examples are those with Alzheimer's). It is emotionally painful to see loved ones suffer unnecessarily (Waskowic & Chartier, 2003, p. 78). A Death Wish – many people want to make decisions regarding their own lives and eventual deaths while they still can. They will not wait when they become incapacitated and let others decide for them, which in some instances, may not be what they want. This is why lawyers today have a new flourishing practice in crafting living wills or the so-called advance directives of some wealthy people. Essentially, an advance directive contains the instructions that a sick or dying person wants to be followed when he can no longer express those wishes. These are essentially instructions for the family members, relatives and doctors to follow. It contains instructions as well for palliative care and end-of-life treatments (Pope, 2010, p. 1). Living wills or advance directives put a sick or incapacitated person in charge of his own medical care although many patients ended up dying not in consonance with their wish. Other people do not follow these advance directives to the letter. Although these directives are around for two decades already in Medicare-certified health institutions, there are new bills to propose refining these laws, such as foregoing life-sustaining treatments (Pear, 2010, p. 1). Terri Schiavo – perhaps the most famous case for having advance directives was the case of Ms. Terri Schiavo. Without a living will, Ms. Schiavo became a subject of the court dispute between her parents and her husband. She was born Theresa Marie Schindler and had a seemingly perfect and idyllic life until she unexpectedly suffered a cardiac seizure due to the extreme diet she had such as drinking only liquids and had an electrolyte imbalance. She had never recovered from that cardiac and respiratory arrest; from 1990 to 2005 when life support system was discontinued, she never recovered from her coma. At its core, the issue was who had the ultimate authority to stop her artificial life support system because she was not in any position to express her wishes. She spent the entire 16 years institutionalized in hospitals and her case attracted so much media attention and also from politicians and life-advocacy groups. In total, her case took 7 years and 14 appeals in various courts up to the US Supreme Court. A key point was the courts and legal experts had to use substituted judgment; in ordinary words, it means a person’s best judgment is assumed or presumed whenever that person is no longer competent to give his or her own decision on matters of life and death. Types of Euthanasia – in broad terms, there are four types of euthanasia: suicide, some type of assisted suicide, voluntary euthanasia and the last is involuntary euthanasia. Whatever form it takes, the fact is that the intent is to end a life deliberately for whatever reason. Many countries and states prohibit euthanasia because the taking of life is generally held to be not vested in any individual (only legal authorities are allowed such as in capital punishments). Suicide – this is the act of killing oneself without anyone’s assistance. Ironically, this very act is final and absolute. It means there are no legal barriers when a person decides to take his own life. Once he does that, there is not much the State can do about it. It becomes a de facto act. This is why the law is powerless to stop this type of euthanasia. This is why in legal terms, people can rightfully say it is entirely or perfectly legal. Assisted Suicide – this happens when a person assists another person to take his own life. It becomes assisted suicide as it pertains to who did the last act of the dying. If it was the dying person who had committed that last act, such as the swallowing of an overdose of pills, turning off the switch to the respirator machine or pulling a plug on life-support equipment, then it is assisted suicide and the person who helped the dying person is criminally liable. Voluntary Euthanasia – this usually involves someone who wishes to die already like those with a terminal illness and gives their consent for the doctor to deliver the final coup de grace (French for death blow) for them to finally cross the barrier from the living to the dead. A doctor usually is asked to perform this act such as injecting an overdose of painkillers with a dose of anesthesia to make the person lose consciousness first and then die painlessly. Many cultures around the world practice some forms of euthanasia. In ancient times, those mortally wounded in battle can ask their colleagues to finish them off and end their suffering quickly. American Indians (Native Americans) kill a wounded warrior with a short thrust to the heart; Japanese warriors called samurai also kill themselves if they commit any form of dishonor. It is a highly ritualistic suicide known as seppuku and done through hara-kiri (cutting the belly). A fellow warrior is always nearby whenever the suicide becomes too weak to finalize his act. Involuntary Euthanasia – this is also very controversial because the act of euthanasia is carried out without the consent of the person to be killed. The dying person is not asked; a decision to terminate his life is made by someone else. This is highly controversial because of the potential abuses it entails. Many ethical and moral questions are raised against this type of euthanasia. Principally, the arguments against this type are the following: it might accidentally include people who are not really terminally ill, it can become a form of cost containment, it is very probable it can become compulsory (forced or non-voluntary) and most importantly, it rejects the value placed on a human life and instead cheapens it. Some ethicists also make additional classifications about euthanasia: passive type and active type. In the first case, it pertains to withdrawal of medical treatment with the deliberate intention of causing a patient’s death. In this regard, it is very similar to the earlier involuntary euthanasia. On the other hand, active euthanasia is taking an active step to cause a patient’s or a person’s death, such as injecting poison or an overdose of painkillers. It is therefore similar to an assisted suicide but this assumes there was voluntary informed consent. Palliative Care – a person just needs to visit and spend some time in geriatrics section or department of a hospital and see firsthand how the debate on euthanasia can have a direct meaning and impact. One is most likely to see how elderly and sickly people suffer on a daily basis from a terminal illness such as cancer and how they wish they would die soon and not suffer any longer. Modern medicine has allowed mankind the capability to prolong lives in a manner that extends the pain of dying. Longevity was once pursued vigorously but it has now come with a steep price. Being long-lived may involve dying a painful and tortuous death. An emergence of right-to-die societies and advocacy groups is not surprising anymore as there is a marked increased in the elderly age group of the global population. In many instances, one can witness geriatrics patients who lost their decisional capacities regarding proper treatments they would have wanted (Chen, 2010, p. 1). There are cases where an illness is progressive such as Alzheimer's or dementia and nothing can be done to halt its advance. In instances like that, the best that can be done is put one's affairs all in order (Hartocollis, 2010, p. 1). Conclusion There are strong arguments for and against euthanasia; the debate seems endless. But this paper will argue that euthanasia should not be allowed in most instances and it should be a crime against humanity. In other words, it should remain in the statutes to be a crime when a person takes someone's life, with doctors becoming liable to tort (Zaremski, 2002, p. 4). It is Criminal in Nature – despite all the strong arguments in favor of euthanasia, it is still considered a crime such that only three countries so far had allowed for a limited form of euthanasia (Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands); only the three US states of Oregon, Washington and Montana allow it for medical reasons. This is based on strong legal grounds because the taking of life is against all natural laws. Ohio and Iowa tried to legalize it in 1906 but the bills were defeated on practical grounds (Appel, 2004, p. 622). Euthanasia can never be rationalized in whatever circumstances by its proponents (Dowbiggin, 2002, p. 224). Major Religions against Euthanasia – it is quite surprising that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all against euthanasia. This contrasts with their varied stance regarding the other medical ethics issues such as abortions (when does human life start?), organ transplants (when is it ethical to take a viable organ (from the dying or only from dead?) and medically-assisted procreation (in-vitro fertilization and even cloning methods). While it is true that religions are often not updated on the latest medical advances, the three major religions are united against euthanasia because the human body contains the soul and should be held sacred. The passive form of euthanasia is considered a human rights abuse and active euthanasia is a big crime. Against Morality and Medical Ethics – the medical profession is definitely against it as it contradicts the Hippocratic Oath. Health care professionals take a solemn vow to uphold life at all costs and in almost all instances (with very few exceptions). The Nursing Code had a position against euthanasia (ANA, 1994, p. 2) as well as the doctors (AMA, 2010, p. 1). The medical profession is often put into a difficult position such that both influential groups were forced to issue guidelines regarding its stance against euthanasia to forewarn all members. A big danger is once euthanasia is legalized, abuses will definitely happen like an unscrupulous doctor helping a patient with a temporary depression to commit suicide (Pickert, 2009, p. 1). Already, some groups had organized “suicide tours” to Switzerland (Bachmann, 2009, p. 1). Reference List American Medical Association (AMA). (2010). AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.ama-assn.org/ American Nurses Association (ANA). (2010). Ethics and Human Rights. Retrieved from http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/HealthcareandPolicyIssues/ANAPositionStatements/EthicsandHumanRights.aspx Anti-aging and Human Immortality (2010, May 18). An Overview on Euthanasia: Are We the Master of Our Own Destiny? Health and Aging, Lifestyle. Retrieved from http://www.immortalhumans.com/an-overview-on-euthanasia-are-we-the-master-of-our-own-destiny/ Appel, Jacob M. (Fall 2004). A Duty to Kill? A Duty to Die? Re-thinking the Euthanasia Controversy of 1906. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 78(3), 610-634. Bachmann, Helena (2009, November 16). Swiss Government Tries to Stop “Suicide Tourists.” Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1939686,00.html Dowbiggin, Ian Robert (2002). A “Rational” Coalition: Euthanasia, Eugenics and Birth Control in America. Journal of Policy History, 14(3), 223-260. Chen, Pauline W. (2010, April 15). Making Your Wishes Known at the End of Life. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/health/15chen.html?_r=1 Hartocollis, Anemona (2010, April 3). Months to Live: Helping Patients Face Death, She Fought to Live. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/health/04doctor.html Mystakidou, Kyriaki. (Winter 2005). The Evolution of Euthanasia and its Perceptions in Greek Culture and Civilization. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 48(1), 95-104. Pear, Robert (2010, December 25). Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan that Caused Stir. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?scp=1&sq=Pear,%20Robert,%20life-sustaining%20treatments,%20Dec.%2025&st=cse Pickert, Kate (2009, March 03). A Brief History of Assisted Suicide. Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1882684,00.html Pope, Tara Parker (2010, April 15). Do Living Wills Really Make a Difference? The New York Times. Retrieved from http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/do-living-wills-really-make-a-difference/?scp=2&sq=advance%20directives,%20death&st=cse Zaremski, Miles J. (2002, August 14). Patients' Rights and Accountability: Can There Exist Rights Without Remedies in a USA Legislative Framework? American College of Legal Medicine in The Journal of Legal Medicine. Retrieved from http://www.aclm.org/resources/articles.aspx Waskowic, Tracey D. & Chartier, Brian M. (2003). Attachment and the Experience of Grief Following Loss of a Spouse. Journal of Death and Dying, 47(1), 77-91. Read More