Ethical Considerations of Euthanasia - Essay Example

Euthanasia Euthanasia is the mercy killing or death that is achieved by intentionally killing or ending the life of anotherindividual in order to bring to an end their pain or suffering. It is an action that is taken by doctors in hospitals or soldiers in the battle where the recipient is mortally wounded, or they are suffering from a terminal disease like cancer or other insufferable diseases and/or conditions. Euthanasia sparks different responses from different people and in various societies, in the world. Being an issue that touches that touches on the sanctity of life, euthanasia is a hotly debated phenomena in different parts of the world with some countries enacting laws and regulations governing its use and application in practice. The morality and ethical considerations of euthanasia makes a subject of great concern to different religious denominations and human rights groups around the world. Euthanasia stems for the view that a person holds the right to determine the fate of their life when faced with a life threatening situation or condition with cure or alleviation. People suffering from terminal diseases like cancer and other genetic disorders that predispose someone to a painful existence and unwarranted suffering to those around them have the right to decide as to whether to lighten this burden. Other quarters of society believe that life is privileged and holy, and it is no one’s realm of responsibility to decide upon its tenure. The general perception and definition of euthanasia is that it should only take place with the sole intention of relieving suffering, and the recipient should sanction it. Euthanasia can be voluntary, involuntary, non-voluntary and passive euthanasia. All of these forms depend on the legal, ethical, moral and religious perspective upon which the issue is regarded with and the concerned country. Euthanasia is at the heart of medical ethics, and it is still an on-going concern in bioethics with vigorous research studies being conducted to determine its right place in practice of medicine. In its entirety, euthanasia is supposed to be the painless inducement of death with the sole purpose of alleviating suffering and pain in a person, who is suffering from an incurable disease and/or condition. Voluntary euthanasia requires the recipient’s consent, which makes it a legal practice in Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands. Passive voluntary euthanasia is also legal throughout the United States (US) as it was established in precedent set in the case of Cruzan vs. Director, Missouri Department of Health (Ferrand et al, 2011, p469). Assisted suicide is also regarded as a component of voluntary euthanasia where a patient, through the assistance of a medical practitioner brings about his or her own death. Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland and some U.S. states like Montana, Oregon and Washington (Ferrand et al, 2011, p471). Non-voluntary euthanasia, on the other hand, takes place where the recipient’s permission is not available as characterized by comatose patients or child euthanasia, which is considered illegal worldwide except in certain situations like in the Netherlands where it is legalized under the Groningen Protocol (Knutson, 2013, n.p). Involuntary euthanasia takes place without the consent of the recipient who is also unwilling to go through the procedure making it illegal and punishable under legal definitions of murder and manslaughter. Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of all necessary treatments and life supporting amenities to facilitate the quick progression of life threatening disease or condition. Active euthanasia encompasses the use of force or a lethal substance(s) to bring to an end the life of the recipient making it the most controversial form. All of these manifestations and definitions of euthanasia have been developed and debated upon in an effort to create a situation where killing is allowed and legalized. Killing is considered one of the most heinous acts that can be committed by a human being, and its application in any aspect of life is met with a lot of negative criticism and support in equal measure. Euthanasia still features prominently in medical ethics and legal debates as to its purpose and need in practice. The change in government policies has seen a progressive move towards the formulation of laws that govern the use of euthanasia in various countries around the world. Although, this change has gradual and slow, to say the least, where ethics and the morality of killing for any reason have played a major role in stagnating efforts of those who see euthanasia as a good thing. Euthanasia law is different by country of its administration with diverse views and definitions and provisions for its application in various circumstances. Euthanasia is only widely accepted and practiced with regard to non-human recipients. For example, a horse that breaks its leg or a dog suffering from an incurable, debilitating and painful disease can be euthanized to spare them the suffering and save their owners the high cost of treatment. A country like Australia legalised euthanasia in the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 and Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 (McCormack et al., 2012, p27). In the United Kingdom, euthanasia is illegal in all countries under its flagship. There exist various provisions that individuals can cite in order to make their requests for mercy killing to remain within the boundaries of the law in Britain and Wales. The Advance Directive exists for such purposes where a person can make a prior directive or appoint a representative under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. According to Steck et al., (2013 p946), patients can refuse medication and treatment if their condition robs them of the mental capacity upon consideration by the medical personnel and practitioners attending to their case. Knutson (2013) considers Ms Silving postulate that euthanasia is murder in all its manifestations and presentations with respect to the US’s legal definitions of euthanasia and what constitutes murder. This is cited as one of the key forerunners of legal reform that has led to some states in the US making accommodations for euthanasia in particular contexts. Various countries have made provisions in the legal definitions and provisions for the practice of euthanasia in certain situations as warranted by their laws. This is apart from some Scandinavian countries that have express laws that make the practice legal. An alternate view that supports the legalization of euthanasia is the ethical and moral implications of the act. Personal autonomy, ending suffering, protection of vulnerable persons, dignity, compassion and the promotion of good palliative care are some of the concerns raised when debating the morality of the euthanasia. Enduring powers of attorney are legal provisions in some countries that give another individual power and the right to make medical decisions in case a patient becomes incapable of making these decisions. Protected medical documents that give trustees of a patient the power to decide on their behalf with regard to medical decisions. These documents are known to prohibit euthanasia unless otherwise stated and treatment efforts are futile. According to some proponents of those who do not support euthanasia, they claim it is a practice that defeats the purpose of life. This is in the sense that bringing the issue of euthanasia to the fore limits a patient’s will to leave and their willingness to fight for their lives (Ferrand et al., 2011, p470). Doctors could be mistaken as to the seriousness of the disease, and advocate for an option that not only is not in the best interests of the recipient, but also against legal and ethical provisions and expectations of society. Ethical support for euthanasia is grounded on various considerations that make it possible for people to view the practice as a positive phenomenon. Duty to die is such consideration where the patient can opt to die in an effort to save their caregivers, family and friends the expense of caring for them with respect to raising costs of medical care. Most practitioners do not support this perspective as presented by the Futile Care Theory that seeks to gauge the value of human life with respect to the financial cost of keeping a person alive (Steck et al., 2013, p942). The principle of double effect is a notion that supports the administration of pain relief treatment and medication even if it has the potential to shorten the life of an individual. This functions as long as the primary intention is to relieve pain and alleviate suffering of the recipient and not to kill them, which should be a side effect consequence of the treatment. There is also a raging debate on the legality and morality of harvesting organs form patients in a vegetative state to save lives that are more promising. This creates room to ask the question who has the right to determine the worthiness of a person’s life over the other. Moral relativism seeks to further people’s understanding by teaching them that there is no absolute moral truth regarding anything. This is in the sense that what appears to be true and justified to one person is not the same in a different individual. In this sense what determines morality and ethics in society is as diverse as the geographical location that these views and perspectives emanate from with respect to euthanasia. Bibliography Ferrand, Edouard, Eric Rondeau, François Lemaire, and Marc Fischler. "Requests for euthanasia and palliative care in France." The Lancet 377, no. 9764 (2011): 467-468. Knutson, Kate. "Impact of Euthanasia on the Healthcare Team." (2013). McCormack, Ruaidhri, Margaret Clifford, and Marian Conroy. "Attitudes of UK doctors towards euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: A systematic literature review." Palliative medicine 26, no. 1 (2012): 23-33. Steck, Nicole, Matthias Egger, Maud Maessen, Thomas Reisch, and Marcel Zwahlen. "Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Selected European Countries and US States: Systematic Literature Review." Medical care 51, no. 10 (2013): 938-944. Read More