Euthanasia as Valid Option for the Terminally Ill - Essay Example

Running Head: ASSISTED SUICIDE Assisted Suicide Introduction According to Trigilo and Brighenti (2007), Euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is defined as “is the intentional and deliberate ending of a human life.” In passive euthanasia, the patient is allowed to die by not providing him with the necessary treatment, while in active euthanasia; the process of death of the patient is hastened by proving a substance (sometimes poison) or a procedure, which results in the ending of life. The term “euthanasia” actually originates from the Greek word “eu thanatos” which means “good death”. Legalized euthanasia can be a good thing for terminally ill patients because it offers a chance for a dignified death. Euthanasia as valid option for the Terminally Ill Human being are not the creators of their own lives, but are brought into the world with the help of their respective parentage. Therefore, the issue of proving men with a right to terminate their own lives is bound to be a controversial matter. Most of the theological and religious texts of the world categorize “Suicide” as a form of crime. Just as killing other people is viewed as a horrendous act, so also ending one’ own life is considered as a misdeed. However, under some extreme situations, human beings are compelled to consider the option of terminating their own existence. Patients who are inflicted with a terminal disease or have been injured fatally in an accident have to go through a phase of severe pain till the time they finally succumb to the illness. Bearing the agony of suffering for a prolonged period proves to be too much for some of the patients, and they then request to be granted a process of hastened death to end their suffering. Thus, terminally ill or fatally injured patients seek euthanasia as a feasible method to relive themselves of their distress. However, authors, philosophers and medical practitioners are divided in their opinions on whether euthanasia can be considered as a valid option even for the terminally ill patients. According to author Scott Peck (1997), the process of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) can be thought of as a feasible choice for a patient suffering from a severe chronic illness, which had no hopes of being cured (Speck, 1997; Breitbart & Rosenfield, 2000). The practice of euthanasia is not yet considered legal in most of the Courts of Justice in the USA. In June 1997, the American Supreme Court passed a ruling that there is no constitutional right supporting euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (PAS), nor is there any legislation prohibiting the practice. Following this ruling, the state of Oregon proceeded to legalize PAS. However, this legislation was opposed by most of the other US States. Following the decision of the US Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Florida also declared that the citizens do not possess any constitutional right to terminate their lives at their own will. After this judgment, the legislative assemblies of 7 US States voted to formulate a law, which clearly prohibited the practice of euthanasia and PAS. Alternatively, the state legislature of Maine had proceeded to pass a bill legalizing euthanasia, but the bill failed to gain the confidence of majority of the voters in the legislature. In November 2000, majority of the voters in Maine rejected the consideration of making PAS a legal procedure. Earlier to this, in November 1998, 70% of the voting population of Michigan had also defeated a proposal of legalizing euthanasia. These facts reflect that majority of the general population of the US States have refused to consider euthanasia and PAS as a valid option even for terminally ill or fatally injured patients (Ezekiel, Emanuel, 2002). Different Methods of Euthanasia There are primarily two methods for implementing euthanasia to terminally ill or fatally injured patients. In passive euthanasia, the physicians stop administering the necessary medicines and treatment to the patients so that they gradually succumb to the fatal illness or injury. In case of active euthanasia, the doctors deliberately provide a drug or an injection to the patient, which results in the termination of their lives. In 1996, Meier, Emmons, Wallenstein et al conducted a questionnaire survey among a stratified probability sample of 3012 medical practitioners belonging to 10 special medicinal branches who were most likely to receive requests for conducting euthanasia from their respective patients. Out of the 61 % of physicians who responded to the questions, 11% of them stated that under the present legal framework, they would be administer euthanasia to their patients by providing a medicine, while 7% of the physicians declared that they were willing to administer a lethal injection to their patients to hasten their death process (Meier, Emmons, Wallenstein et al, 1996). The methods of administering passive and active euthanasia entail their own implications on the part of the medical practitioners. Usually, terminally ill patients or those who have met with a fatal accident are kept on rigorous medical treatment and life supporting medicines to prolong their longevity. Sometimes, the patients are found to be surviving solely on life support systems being monitored in the hospital or nursing home. In such cases, the patient families often reach a consensus with the physicians to help the suffering patient to a painless death. The doctors gradually withdraw the life supporting systems and medicines so that the patient slowly succumbs to his illness or injury. In such passive euthanasia cases, cessation of the treatment process is enough to administer permanent relief to the suffering patient. In other cases, the physicians are required to assume a more active role. People who are detected with cancer usually have to go through several stages of treatment, which involves taking radiation, chemotherapy etc. These medicines combat the cancerous cells but simultaneously begin to affect the healthy parts of the patient’s body. Gradually their health weakens and they begin to experience a host of side effects, which further deteriorates their physical and mental condition. Cancer requires such sustained treatment for a prolonged period, though this is not enough to ensure the complete cure of the disease. Even after such treatment, the disease may relapse again. In many cases, this entire process becomes unbearable for the patient. Surveys have found that, physicians receive the maximum requests for administering euthanasia from cancer patients. In many such cases, taking the consent of the patients and their families, the doctors inject a lethal drug or a medicine to their wards which results in a termination of the latter’s life. These are instances of active euthanasia (Battin & Lipman, 1996). Real Life Cases of Euthanasia There are have many surveys regarding the real life examples of Euthanasia and PAS. Patients suffering from cancer have been found to be the majority among those who have requested their respective doctors to help them terminate their lives. In a survey conducted by Ezekiel and Emanuel in 2002 among US Physicians, about 50% of the surveyed oncologists had received requests for administering euthanasia to their patients while the corresponding percentage for non-oncologists was 20%. The findings of these surveys also indicate that in spite of euthanasia being illegal, a small proportion of US doctors had implemented it on their patients following the latter’s requests. Similar to the requests, oncologists were found to have administered euthanasia more frequently than the physicians of other medical disciplines (Ezekiel, Emanuel, 2002) Specialists have also surveyed the relative importance of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide among the physicians who had actually conducted the practice. In 2000, Emanuel, Fairclough and Clarridge et al carried out a survey among 3299 oncology specialists who were members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology to form an idea about the practices of administering euthanasia among these medical practitioners. 3.7% of the surveyed oncologists reported to have implemented euthanasia among their patients while 10.8% of them claimed to have performed physician-assisted suicide (Emanuel, Fairclough and Clarridge et al, 2000) Suffering of Patients who are denied the right to Euthanasia Although a huge number of terminally ill patients send their requests for terminating their own lives, not all such requests are granted. In fact, the members of the general population are clear in their opinion regarding the patients who can be granted this right. Emanuel, Daniels, & Fairclough (2003) conducted a survey on 155 terminally ill cancer patients, 355 oncologists and 193 members of the general population to assess their experiences and opinions about physician-assisted suicide. Around 66% of the cancer patients and the general public considered euthanasia to be an acceptable option for patients inflicted with tremendous suffering. However, the same patients and members of the population refused to consider euthanasia as a viable option for patients who considered themselves to be a burden on their families and viewed their lives as a hopeless and meaningless existence. However, the overall conclusions of the study suggested that patients who desired euthanasia to relieve them of their pain, should be evaluated and administered psychological treatment before considering assisted suicide as an acceptable option for them (Emanual, Daniels, Fairclough, et al, 2003). However, the consequences of denying the right to euthanasia to certain patients have been quite severe. It has already been elaborated that euthanasia or PAS are not considered legal practices by most of the states in USA. Therefore, most of the cases of patients who appeal to the US Courts of Justice do not receive the latter’s consent regarding the administering of euthanasia to terminate the life of the patients. Some of these patients have attempted to put an end to their lives themselves. Among them, some have succeeded while others have failed to do so, but in the process have deteriorated their physical condition further. Under both circumstances, the patients have caused further agony to themselves as well as their respective families and attending physicians. Thus, the practical results of denying the right to euthanasia to critical patients are quite extreme and cannot be ignored under any circumstance. Lee (1999) has stated that the state governments accomplish their own ethical standards by not legalizing euthanasia, but are oblivious to the practical effects of their decision. When patients who are subject to tremendous pain due to their respective illnesses, are unable to secure a legal permission to PAS, they often try to commit suicide themselves, inspite of not being physically or mentally capable of doing so. The patients may ask any of their family members to help them in their attempts to terminate their lives. In most cases, the family members are novices in the medical field and therefore the suicide attempts prove to be painful and unsuccessful for the patients instead of relieving them from their suffering. This often proves to be a traumatic experience for the family member who had only tried to permanently relieve the agony of his close one. It is unfair on the part of the patient to make his family experience such a nightmare but it should be remembered that in most cases, he is not even in the mental condition to realize the effects of his actions (Lee, 1999). Financial Burden of the Families of the Terminally Ill Although, the families of most of the terminally ill patients have to bear a huge financial expenditure for their treatment, this can never be a reason for either the patient of his family to consider terminating the former’s life. The medical treatment of a person inflicted with a terminal illness like cancer or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis involves a huge sum of money. The diagnosis of these diseases itself involves several pathological tests and once the illness is established, the patient is required to go through several stages of treatment. For example, a cancer patient is needed to pass through a prolonged procedure of medical management, which may involve surgery, receiving radiation, chemotherapy and so on. As the facilities and innovations of medical science have increased over the years, the cost of medical treatment has also escalated. Providing adequate treatment to terminally ill patients requires his family to spend a considerable amount of their financial resources. Similarly, the medical management of people who have suffered a terrible accident also requires a huge expenditure. In the modern age of information, most of the patients are aware of this enormous financial expenditure borne by their families. The results of many surveys have shown that after a point of time, the patients experience a sense of guilt and consider themselves to be causing a financial burden on their families. Thus, many of them request to be granted the right to euthanasia or PAS and thus spare their families from spending such a huge amount of their resources on their treatment. Interestingly, majority of the general US population do not honor this sentiment of guilt and therefore declare that such patients should not be granted the right to terminate their lives. Only when a person wants to free himself from unbearable pain resulting from an illness or an accident, in those cases euthanasia or PAS could be considered a valid option. Conclusion The case of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide (PAS) has been a subject of active debate across the world. Similar to any other serious issue, the subject of euthanasia also has arguments both for and against it. Since euthanasia involves a very important ethical dimension, most of the US Courts of Justice have not yet legalized its practice. However, the practical effects of denying the right to euthanasia to terminally ill or fatally injured patients have caused extreme reactions, which cannot be altogether ignored. Therefore, the context of euthanasia is far from being resolved and is expected to fuel many important debates in the future too. Working Bibliography 1. Battin, M.P, Lipman, A.G (1996) Drug use in assisted suicide and euthanasia USA, Routledge, ISBN 1-56024-814-9 2. Berger, A.S (1995) When life ends: legal overviews, medicolegal forms, and hospital policies USA, Greenwood Publishing Group, ISBN: 0-275-94620-7 3. Bimbacher, D. & Edgar, D. (2008) Giving death a helping hand: physician-assisted suicide and public policy Germany, Springer, ISBN 978-1-4020-6495-1 4. Brietbart, W., Rosenfeld, B., Pessin, H. et al (2000) Depression, Hopelessness, and Desire for Hastened Death in Terminally Ill Patients With Cancer. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(22), 2907-2911 5. Council of Europe (2004) Euthanasia: National and European perspectives Germany, Council of Europe, ISBN-92-871-5199-7 6. Corr, C.A, Nabe, C., Nabe, C.M & Corr, D.M (2008) Death and Dying, Life and Living Canada, Cengage Learning, ISBC. 13: 978-0-495-50646-1 7. Cousineau, N., McDowell, I., Hotz, S. & Hebert, P. (2003) Measuring Chronic Patients’ Feelings of Being a Burden to their Caregivers, Journal of Medical Care 41(1) 110-118 8. Emanuel, M.D, Daniels, B.R, Fairclough, D.L et al (2003) Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: attitudes and experiences of oncology patients, oncologists, and the public The Lancet, 347 (9018), 1805-1810 9. Emanuel, E.J, Fairclough, D., Clarridge, B.C et al (2000) Attitudes and Practices of U.S. Oncologists regarding Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide, Annals of Internal Medicine 133(7) 527-532 10. Emanuel, E.J (2002) Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Review of the Empirical Data From the United States Archives of Internal Medicine 162(2) 142-152 11. Emanuel, E.J, Fairclough, D.L, Slutsman, J.& Emanuel, L.L (2000) Understanding Economic and Other Burdens of Terminal Illness: The Experience of Patients and Their Caregivers Annals of Internal Medicine 132(6) 451-459 12. Foley, K.M & Hendin, H (2002) The case against assisted suicide: for the right to end-of-life care USA, The John Hopkins University Press, ISBN 0-8018-6792-4 13. Gorsuch, N.M (2009) The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia USA, Princeton University Press, ISBN: 978–0-691-14097 14. Huxtable,R. (2007) Euthanasia, ethics and the law: from conflict to compromise USA, Routledge, ISBN 10: 1-84472-105-1 15. Meier, D.E, Emmons, C-E, Wallenstein, S. et al (1998) A National Survey of Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the United States The New England Journal of Medicine 338 1193-1201 16. McDougall, J.F, Gorman, M. & Roberts, C.S (2008) Euthanasia: a reference handbook USA, ABC-CLIO, ISBN: 978-1-59884-121-3 17. Norman, G.A.V, Jackson, S. & Rosenbaum, S.H (2010) Clinical Ethics in Anesthesiology: A Case-Based Textbook UK, Cambridge University Press 18. Paterson, C (2008) Assisted suicide and euthanasia: a natural law ethics approach Great Britain, Ashgate Publishing Ltd. 19. Scherer, J.M, Simon, R.J (1999) Euthanasia and the right to die: a comparative view, USA, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., ISBN 0-8476-9167-5 20. Tulloch, G. (2005) Euthanasia, choice and death Great Britain, Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 0 7486 2247 0 Read More