The Code of Ethics - Report Example

Introduction The aim of this paper is to identify from any of the scenarios presented to us for our assignment and evaluate the ethical reasoning behind the issue. For this assignment, we have decided to analyze the ethical principles and theories on the issue of “Euthanasia” based on the case-study “Angie's Choice: A Death with Dignity.” In traditional terms, euthanasia can literally be described as “happy death” or “good death” (LeBaron, 1999). In effect, according to American Medical Association's Council (1992), euthanasia is defined as “the act of bringing about the death of a hopelessly ill and suffering person in a relatively quick and painless way for reasons of mercy. In this report, the term euthanasia will signify the medical administration of a lethal agent to a patient for the purpose of relieving the patient's intolerable and incurable suffering.” Now in the modern world, euthanasia has been divided into two kinds: passive and active. Active euthanasia is when the patients living on life support are taken off from the life support system and hence a natural death occurs. In most social circles and laws, passive euthanasia has been given a nod. Active euthanasia is when a patient is administered with something that becomes the cause of death. Active euthanasia has been regarded by many as an act of murder and suicide. Therefore, active euthanasia is frowned upon, despite others propagating it on the grounds of human rights and autonomy with regards to the decision of life and death (LeBaron, 1999). For this paper, we will analyze, compare and contrast two ethical theories that prevail on the issue of euthanasia. We will further discuss four ethical principles related to euthanasia, even as discussing these keeping in mind the ethical code of conduct charted out for the nurses. For the chosen scenario, “Angie's Choice: A Death with Dignity” it may be highlighted that the case is about a woman, Angie Belecciu, who was suffering from bone cancer for the past 18 years. She knew that she had only two choices in front of her, either to be found dead in an unfamiliar bed by someone unknown, or to die peacefully and with her dignity intact much before (Medew, 2009). She decided to go for the second option and was found in her favorite bed on 24th March 2009. Before giving up her life, she had brought her case into media, asking for a discussion on the ethical value of euthanasia for patients suffering from extremely painful conditions and with no hope of recovery. In this paper, we will be taking the argument further on and analyzing the various ethical theories that remain with regards to euthanasia, even as we discuss how and why euthanasia should or should not be practiced. We will also be discussing the ethical responsibilities or code of conduct on behalf of the nurses in situations like this. Ethical Theories According to Catherine Rainbow (2002), ethical theory is something that has a few based ethical principles to prove its point or stand with regards to a certain situation or condition. In the case we are discussing, that is euthanasia, in all, there are two major ethical theories that exist. The first ethical theory contains that euthanasia is certainly ethical and goes in accordance with human rights. The second theory explains that euthanasia is illegal and is more on the lines of disregarding the life of a person and hence, should not be practiced. Following this, we will compare and contrast both the theories. Theory 1: “Euthanasia should be practiced as it is in accordance with Human Rights.” Advocates of euthanasia argue that it is inhumane to make the patients suffering from unbearable pain let live. They further state that patients suffering from unbearable pain and incurable diseases will die sooner or later. It does not make a difference if they die a year later enduring excess suffering and pain or die a year earlier voluntarily. In essence, it is better that such patients be rid of the pain they are undergoing (which is bound to increase with time). Any state has no right to determine the importance of life of any person. It is entirely the decision of the person if his life is worth living (in case of extreme pain, unbearable life conditions and zero quality of life). In medical profession, the code of ethics clearly states that the right to take treatment is entirely upon the wishes of the patient. When the patient is being forcibly kept on life support systems, there is a breach of the stated code of ethics. Euthanasia, therefore, is the moral right of any human being. Tara Cellars (2008) clearly states that it is useless to be resuscitated once the heart stops beating for the life after resuscitation will only be one of pain and ill health among those terminally ill. She further argues that for patients living in a vegetative state, completely dependent on others for their needs have complete right to die instead of going on living in that pitiable state. Theory 2: “Euthanasia amounts to murder and suicide and does not follow the nature’s pattern.” Even as euthanasia is made illegal by law, several thinkers believe that euthanasia is in direct conflict with the law of nature. Wolhandler (1984) mentions in his article that “those who condemn euthanasia of both kinds would call the involuntary form murder and the voluntary form a compounded crime of murder and suicide if administered by the physician, and suicide alone if administered by the patient himself. As far as voluntary euthanasia goes, it is impossible to separate it from suicide as a moral category; it is, indeed, a form of suicide.” He further goes on to say that “once society accepts that life can be terminated because of its diminished quality, there is no rational way to limit euthanasia and prevent its abuse.” Several scriptures and schools of thought have stated that life of a person is the highest good achieved. However, the theory of euthanasia puts the quality of life much higher than life itself. Euthanasia is also condemned on religious grounds by many advocates. An outline, developed by a commission set by the Lutherian Church of Australia (1981), it has been clearly mentioned that euthanasia is much against the ways of god. Instead, the church proposes taking care of patients suffering in extreme pain and agony, instead of granting them with mercy killing. Several thinkers also believe that euthanasia is an act of cowardice and if legalized might result in several unnecessary suicides. People might claim euthanasia for themselves in case of problems, physical or otherwise, citing poor lifestyle as a legitimate reason of being granted death. Instead of opting for euthanasia, some people like Taboda (2009) believe that elimination of the suffering is more important than elimination of the subject of suffering (in this case the patient). Then again, in cases where the patient undergoes coma indefinitely might be killed in the name of mercy killing by greedy relatives or family (Maisie, 2008). Therefore, euthanasia does not quite solve the complete basis of human life, which is respect for life. Ethical principals behind euthanasia Even as euthanasia has both, supporters and condemners into its fold, there are certain ethical principles behind the concept of euthanasia. For nurses who face the dilemma of euthanasia for suffering patients, certain ethical principles do come into the foray. When you become a nurse, there are various ethical code of conduct that you are expected to follow. Some of these ethical codes of conduct are: providing a good environment in which she/he takes care of the patient. A nurse ensures the withholding of the “human rights, values, customs and spiritual beliefs of the individual, family and community” (International Council of Nurses, 2006). A nurse is also to look after the proper care of the patient while sharing medical and personal information with the patient and family. A nurse is to promote well being of the patient. Keeping these few pointers in mind, we will explain how euthanasia is/not in adherence to the code of conduct charted for the nurses. Mentioned below are four ethical principles that explain euthanasia and the concept behind it backing/opposing it. - The benefits/harm of euthanasia Euthanasia or mercy killing has been a widely discussed topic since centuries. People in favor of euthanasia have increased manifold. One f the reasons for the same is the increased life expectancy. Before the development of medicine, the life expectancy was 50 to 60 years. People used to earlier die of common diseases such as dysentery, pneumonia etc. However, with advancement in science and medicine, the life expectancy has increased to 75 years and people are now dying of more complex diseases such as cancer, heart problems, AIDS etc. The treatment for these complex diseases is also extremely difficult and painful, even as it takes a toll on the body. In such a scenario, people suffering from incurable and yet regular deterioration in condition have plead for mercy killing. One of the benefits of euthanasia is that it helps the patient die peacefully and stops the prolonged suffering of the patient. However, euthanasia is also very prone to being misused by many. - No harm to the society Euthanasia poses no imminent harm towards the society. If the patient voluntarily accepts euthanasia for him/herself, it brings no calamity on the society around. Further, it also elevates the mid set of the relatives of the patient that might be ravaged by the ever impending death or pain of the patient. Finally, euthanasia also brings peace on the patient by elevating the pain and granting him/her death before the time. It is true, however, that the values set by the society that hold the importance of life very high does fall into ambiguity if euthanasia is quite legalized or given a nod to. - Complete autonomy of the patient with regards to taking decision As mentioned before, it is the right of the patient to take decision with regards to his/her treatment. If the patient refuses to take treatment, it is his right. Euthanasia is in sync with this very important autonomy of a person over his/her life. Nurses are always asked to preserve the autonomy of the patient with regards to his treatment. However, laws that make euthanasia illegal do not follow the foray of granting the patient autonomy over his life. Then again, an argument proposes that despite the patients having autonomy of making decisions, asking to be killed propounds to murder and suicide. If the society is granted with complete autonomy, the cases of suicides over petty conditions might increase double fold, even as euthanasia would become a tool of escaping from the present problems. - Is euthanasia justified in all conditions? It may be realized that euthanasia holds quite an importance amongst those terminally ill and with no hope for recovery. Nevertheless, euthanasia will not be justified in all conditions. Justifying use of euthanasia in all conditions will ensure that the right be misused, even as more people commit suicide in the garb of mercy killing. If need be, a commission should be set up for euthanasia, where the case of the patient be first assessed and analyzed. Euthanasia should only be granted in cases that are hopeless and would only deplete by day. Nurses should be especially vary of this and provide proper guidance to the patients. There are times that many people become hopeless at the time of the identification of the disease. In such a scenario, they seek euthanasia despite being told clearly that they might live several years in health. the nurse’s function here is to preserve the ethical principle by explaining the situation and taking care of the patient completely. Conclusion The nurse’s code of ethics clearly identifies that the nurses are in complete charge of the mental and physical health of the patient. When a patient pleads for euthanasia, it is the nurse’s responsibility to assess the rationality of the case. If the case really does stand apt, the nurse can then approach the authorities with the same. The responsibility of the nurse becomes high in cases pleading for euthanasia. Rationality and objectiveness are much required in these conditions. References: Medew, J. (2009). Angie's Choice: A Death With Dignity. www.theage.com.au, , (2001). Nurses Code of Ethics. Nurses for Human Rights, , Rainbow, C. (2002). Descriptions of Ethical Theories and Principles. Department of Biology, , Davidson College. Extracted from: http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/Indep/carainbow/Theories.htm Wolhandler, S. (1984). Voluntary active euthanasia for the terminally ill and the constitutional right to privacy. Cornell Law Review 69:pp 363-382. LeBaron Jr, G. (1993). The Ethics of Euthanasia - Rethinking the Ethic: A Possible Solution. Quantonics, Inc., , Cellars, T. (2008). Why I Am Pro-Euthanasia. Associated Content, , Extracted from: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/551477/why_i_am_proeuthanasia_pg2_pg2.html?cat=9 Maisie, M. (2008). Pros and Cons of Euthanasia. Buzzle.com, , (1981). Commission on Social and Bioethical Questions Euthanasia or MErcy Killing. Lutheran Church of Australia:, , Taboada, P. (2009). The Ethics of Euthanasia. International Association for Hospice & Palliative Care , , (2006). The ICN Code of Ethics for Nurses. International Council of Nurses, , Read More

Theory 1: “Euthanasia should be practiced as it is in accordance with Human Rights.” Advocates of euthanasia argue that it is inhumane to make the patients suffering from unbearable pain let live. They further state that patients suffering from unbearable pain and incurable diseases will die sooner or later. It does not make a difference if they die a year later enduring excess suffering and pain or die a year earlier voluntarily. In essence, it is better that such patients be rid of the pain they are undergoing (which is bound to increase with time).

Any state has no right to determine the importance of life of any person. It is entirely the decision of the person if his life is worth living (in case of extreme pain, unbearable life conditions and zero quality of life). In medical profession, the code of ethics clearly states that the right to take treatment is entirely upon the wishes of the patient. When the patient is being forcibly kept on life support systems, there is a breach of the stated code of ethics. Euthanasia, therefore, is the moral right of any human being.

Tara Cellars (2008) clearly states that it is useless to be resuscitated once the heart stops beating for the life after resuscitation will only be one of pain and ill health among those terminally ill. She further argues that for patients living in a vegetative state, completely dependent on others for their needs have complete right to die instead of going on living in that pitiable state. Theory 2: “Euthanasia amounts to murder and suicide and does not follow the nature’s pattern.” Even as euthanasia is made illegal by law, several thinkers believe that euthanasia is in direct conflict with the law of nature.

Wolhandler (1984) mentions in his article that “those who condemn euthanasia of both kinds would call the involuntary form murder and the voluntary form a compounded crime of murder and suicide if administered by the physician, and suicide alone if administered by the patient himself. As far as voluntary euthanasia goes, it is impossible to separate it from suicide as a moral category; it is, indeed, a form of suicide.” He further goes on to say that “once society accepts that life can be terminated because of its diminished quality, there is no rational way to limit euthanasia and prevent its abuse.

” Several scriptures and schools of thought have stated that life of a person is the highest good achieved. However, the theory of euthanasia puts the quality of life much higher than life itself. Euthanasia is also condemned on religious grounds by many advocates. An outline, developed by a commission set by the Lutherian Church of Australia (1981), it has been clearly mentioned that euthanasia is much against the ways of god. Instead, the church proposes taking care of patients suffering in extreme pain and agony, instead of granting them with mercy killing.

Several thinkers also believe that euthanasia is an act of cowardice and if legalized might result in several unnecessary suicides. People might claim euthanasia for themselves in case of problems, physical or otherwise, citing poor lifestyle as a legitimate reason of being granted death. Instead of opting for euthanasia, some people like Taboda (2009) believe that elimination of the suffering is more important than elimination of the subject of suffering (in this case the patient). Then again, in cases where the patient undergoes coma indefinitely might be killed in the name of mercy killing by greedy relatives or family (Maisie, 2008).

Therefore, euthanasia does not quite solve the complete basis of human life, which is respect for life. Ethical principals behind euthanasia Even as euthanasia has both, supporters and condemners into its fold, there are certain ethical principles behind the concept of euthanasia. For nurses who face the dilemma of euthanasia for suffering patients, certain ethical principles do come into the foray. When you become a nurse, there are various ethical code of conduct that you are expected to follow.

Read More