Should Euthanasia Be Permitted in Cases of Terminally Ill Patients - Research Paper Example

?EUTHANASIA IS RIGHT OR NOT? Introduction With the advancement of Science and Technology, humankind has been able to optimally manage many complexities of life and one of those complexities is the issue of life and death. The new discoveries in Science and Technology especially in the field of Medicine have given humankind an opportunity to prolong the aging process. Many epidemic diseases are under control and with the life saving drugs around, many excruciating illness have been eradicated. Apart from all these advancements, there are few issues which need to be discussed and need a crucial decision when it comes on choosing death by himself/herself or by a family for a terminally ill patient. This ethical issue comes in view when a patient seeks death for himself/herself if the diseases are incurable, the cost is too high for the family to bear or he/she does not want to endure the pain any longer. This is not an easy decision for himself/herself and for the family as it accounts to a suicide. Euthanasia or the mercy killing therefore leads to opposing views from various sides, leading to controversy. Is mercy killing right legally, morally and ethically? Is it right or wrong? Types of Euthanasia: Euthanasia is derived from Greek term meaning “good death”. It has not gained acceptance because of legal and ethical issues involved with it. Euthanasia is classified into two types – the Active and the Passive Euthanasia. The term, Active Euthanasia is used when a patient’s life is cut short by the physicians at their own discretion, after the patients express their wish. Passive Euthanasia refers to withholding of treatment that would have helped the patient to survive in this world. Active euthanasia: The supporters of Active Euthanasia believe that the person is “better off dead” instead of continuing to live a life of “severely diminished quality” (Paterson, 2008). When a decision to withdraw treatment is made, it takes a day or two for a person to die but in Active Euthanasia a lethal injection is used to end patient’s life without giving him/her any further grievance. In case of patients at an advanced stage of cancer or tumors, and when they undergo severe pain, sizable number of them, wish for Active Euthanasia to relieve them from excruciating pain. It might be viewed as homicide by skeptics, and is being condemned by the authorities and moralists around the world. Passive Euthanasia: Active Euthanasia might be unacceptable to the people on moral and ethical grounds but on the other hand quite a sizable number accept Passive Euthanasia. No doubt, a person undergoing Passive Euthanasia will experience some pain after the removal of life sustaining aids until he/she dies, but there are various reasons why it is accepted. “Firstly, treatment might simply be futile and hence incapable of benefiting the patient. Second, the treatment will be highly cost –effective.” (Garrard and Wilkinson, 2005). Thirdly the treatment should be withdrawn as it is excessively harmful. The fourth reason would be the patient may refuse to undergo treatment. Some treatment may have extreme pain or some may have a less probability of success, the failure of the treatment may cause extreme levels of burdens and poor quality of life. So under these circumstances the treatment refusal leads to passive euthanasia though the physician is aware of the effects of it. (Garrard and Wilkinson, 2005) Issues on Euthanasia: There is no major moral difference between killing a suffering patient and letting them to die. The Active Euthanasia is more or less killing and Passive Euthanasia is letting the patient die by removing the life sustaining aids. The first doctor, who was charged of Euthanasia, was Harold Blazer in 1935. He killed his daughter who was suffering from cerebral spinal meningitis. He killed her by placing a chloroform handkerchief on her nose till she stopped breathing. She was thirty when he killed her. In the trial he was acquitted on moral grounds. The first doctor to be found guilty was Joseph Hassman in 1986, who injected Demerol into his mother-in-law because of her family’s request. (Brogden, 2001). For his crime, “he was sentenced to two years probation, fined $10,000, and ordered to perform 400 hours of community service.” (Brogden, 2001) The other key case is regarding Karen Ann Quinlan and her parents’ wish to have her respirator removed. The girl met a major accident and went into coma. Her parents, a strict Roman Catholics knew Karen would never approve a life in vegetative state. They decided to remove all her living aids and give her a peaceful death. They requested the authorities for it, and when refused, they moved to the court and finally the US Supreme court went for a controversial voting and allowed the parents to have the respirators removed. This choice is very difficult to make when it comes to the persons other than patient, who cannot make that decision. There is always a chance of them being vilified and disparaged. In another case, British rheumatologist, Dr Nigel Cox took a strong decision of giving Lillian Boyes a peaceful death. She suffered from unbearable pain, with no conventional medicine being able to relieve her from the agony. In her last days, she requested and even begged to Dr. Cox, to help her give a peaceful death. Dr. Cox gave her an injection of Potassium Chloride. This doctor, who acted based on his conscience, without focusing on the law of the land, was later arrested. (Docker). All these cases made the society to learn to show a little humanity to those who suffer from a severe unrecoverable illness to undergo euthanasia. This case also helped to develop a social policy that some lifesaving treatments are not always correct and permits passive euthanasia. (Docker) Utilitarianism is the main form of ethical theory that supports euthanasia. Actions or rules should be assessed in terms of their ability to bring maximum utility or happiness to the man kind. If euthanasia brings an end to the endless sufferings of a person, then why can’t it be good to the people? (Paterson, 2008). If a person demands a particular right and if that right affects only himself or herself then what good reason can there be for denying the recognition of this right? Decisions made by the individuals that shape the course of their lives should be respected as long as they don’t injure or harm others. So Euthanasia should also be allowed to be practiced. Active and passive euthanasia should be allowed after the consultancy of the medical professionals, academics, lawyers, politicians, and the public. (Paterson, 2008). The patients who are suffering from terminal illness wants to undergo euthanasia because of the fear of future pain, painful death, lack of hope, fear of complete recovery and lack of quality of life. The patients who suffer from HIV have no hope for recovery. They will lose their immunity slowly. As a result they will be prone to all diseases. Finally they will die due to lack of immunity and dosed heavily with painful diseases. Hence, provided the chance of euthanasia will help them to die in peace. So for these cases euthanasia must be legalized. (Mak, Elwyn and Finlay, 2003). From the psychological point, the mental state of the individual and that person’s family must be taken into account. Suo Rodriquez, a woman in early thirties , died slowly due to a muscular scrump disease. She begged the court to for physician assisted suicide, (that is) to allow her to choose her death time. But she was not permitted to do so. Finally in February 2004, the doctor who was helping her, broke the law and helped her to die in peace. If a law was then enacted for assisted suicide, she might have not lived in horror, spending sleepless nights and wasting a lot of money. The situations like this make the people to think that euthanasia must be legalized. (Docker) Acceptance of Euthanasia: Euthanasia was traced back to ancient Roman and Greek civilization. It is believed that those people practiced this mercy killing to relieve patients from pain. However, as the civilizations progressed and religion became a guiding factor in the society, the life of a human being was started to be viewed as a sacred thing, which can be created and destroyed by a Superior power. Since then it has been made illegal. In 1935, the first group for the legalization of Euthanasia was formed. It was called Voluntary Euthanasia Society. It was started by group of Doctors in London. Since then many new societies came in different countries to help people die peacefully. Now, the pertinent question is, should it be legalized? Personal conclusions Ethically it might seem correct but on medical grounds the approval should be granted. Euthanasia should be made a legal procedure with many regulations. Not all should be allowed to practice this. The first regulation is that, the patient, who is dying from an illness, which cannot be cured or treated, can be allowed to live or die. The second regulation should be that there should be no trace of hope for life. That is, there should be no hope of recovery and when the life expectancy is less even after the treatment. The third regulation should be that the patient must have asked for the procedure more than 3 times and must be active and conscious. That is, when the patient is suffering from intolerable pain, he/she has to make voluntary wish to die, while he/she is still active and conscious, when asking for it, and is not under any pressure. Euthanasia should be a procedure that is not immediately sanctioned to all. The procedure should be taught well to the patient by the doctor. At the same time, the doctor should be aware of the concept and must discuss with other physicians, judges and lawyers regarding providing euthanasia to the patient. Euthanasia should be based on the individual’s decision. Every one cannot accept euthanasia to be the best possible solution, but for those who are suffering from incurable disease, there is no reason why euthanasia is wrong. Medically assisted death is going on in many countries and the legalization of euthanasia has already started. The other countries can also follow the suit and give the terminally ill patients, who have no hope of recovery, a legal and ethical path to choose a peaceful death. It would surely prove a blessing for them to be relieved from unbearable pain and discomfort. References: Brogden, M. (2001). Geronticide: killing the elderly. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Docker, C. Cases in History. Retrieved on February 12, 2010 from http://www.euthanasia.cc/cases Garrard, E and Wilkinson, S. (2005). Passive Euthanasia. Journal of Medical Ethics. 31: 64–68. Mak, Y. W., Elwyn, G and Finlay, I. G. (2003). Patients’ voices are needed in debates on Euthanasia. British Medical Journal. 327(7408): 213–215. Paterson, C. (2008). Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia - A Natural Law Ethics Approach. AshgatePublishing Ltd Read More