Euthanasia Terri Schiavo Case - Research Paper Example

?Euthanasia - Terri Schiavo's Case Introduction My topic will be on Euthanasia that refers to putting an end to a sick person’s life for alleviation of pain, agony and suffering. I have chosen this topic because it challenges some of the ethical issues in healthcare (Economist Article, 2008). The issues that are challenged are beneficence, maleficence, autonomy, and justice. For instance, I will be using Terri Schiavo’s case (coma from 1990 – 2005 March) as an example because it is relevant to this critical discussion. I would apply the aforementioned ethical principles to the case and discuss if Euthanasia is ethical or unethical. Indeed, the case is quite interesting because Terri lacked a living will so it became difficult for providers to carry out their duty and make the right decision without violation of ethical principles. As a future healthcare provider, I am aware of this fact that that I would come across various ethical issues and dilemmas. Therefore, it is justified to argue that Terry’s case would be a learning example. Obviously, it is quite necessary to have sound academic background and know-how of ethical approaches / theories / principles so that a healthcare provider could make just and unethical decisions in practical life. Euthanasia, in past, was viewed as illegal and unethical by people because of certain misconceptions and exaggerations such as putting a deliberate end to any sick person’s life, unawareness about voluntary euthanasia and other types etc. However, there has been much debate among theorists, politicians, law-makers, academicians, doctors, researchers etc. as society has become more open to such issues against past. Euthanasia, in unique cases, is now considered as just and ethical if could help reducing harm to patients. 2. Ethical Considerations There are mixed responses regarding the issue of Euthanasia in society. Indeed, the religious and conservative elements consider euthanasia as unlawful, morally and ethically incorrect because they argue that this is quite closer to an attempted murder or killing. Similarly, the opponents and critics argue that euthanasia is against one’s legitimate right of living; hence, no individual should be left to die even if he / she is disabled or has lost consciousness (Economist Article, 2008). Nevertheless, the proponents of euthanasia disregard and outlaw the opinion of critics by arguing that a person who could not act, think, read, write, and perform one’s routine activities because of loss of consciousness is an alive-dead. For instance, the heart of such patients is kept alive through use of machines such as ventilators, respirators, feeding tube etc. Nevertheless, the endorsers argue that if probability that a person would die if after use of machines in short- and long-term despite all healthcare measures, cures and treatments then it would be better to relieve such person’s pain, agony and suffering through euthanasia. In addition, the next argument is why to waste valuable, yet scarce, resources on saving lives of patients who are already in coma as well as having near-to-zero probability of survival and returning back to normal life. It would be better to use euthanasia in such cases so that these health resources could be allocated to save lives of injured and patients with chronic illnesses that have greater probability to survive. In other words, euthanasia is also beneficial for society when more resources / health facilities are provided to energetic (with life) patients instead of saving unresponsive patients with no real possibility of survival. Also, the proponents argue that some patients request for voluntary euthanasia to mitigate their families from an unnecessary future burden (financial and personal care). As far as financial side of this equation is concerned, it is worth mentioning that a patient (and his / her family) has to bear colossal expenditures during treatment process of unconsciousness. In fact, the elite families could afford such expenditures but the costs of treatment are surely an enormous burden on masses. It should be pinpointed that Euthanasia also helps reducing financial burden on such families who could not assimilate expenses of their lifeless / comatose members. I would now like to provide an example of Terri Schiavo’s case in the light of four ethical principles that are as follows. 2.1 - Principle of Autonomy Penslar (1995) discussed the importance of Autonomy principle by pointing out the fact that patients should be respected and be given control to understand and decide what needs to be done in different circumstances / situations according to their free will and fully ‘informed consent’. For instance, they should neither be forced nor be subjected to undue influences. In Terry Schiavo’s case, the patient Terry did not have any living will that would help finalizing the issue. Also, there was considerable evidence (based on medical reports) that her condition would not improve in near future. Next, the court identified that Terry had no inclination towards life-prolonging so it considered this a respect of autonomy and ordered to remove the feeding tube, thereby leading to euthanasia (Schiavo, 2005). In this way, I would argue that principle of autonomy was not violated as the patient herself was unconscious with almost zero probability of health improvement so the decision could be justified in the light of autonomy principle. In other words, euthanasia would be ethical in two conditions - when informed consent is taken with conscious patients suffering with severe illnesses and when there are unconscious patients with zero chance of improvement. 2.2 - Principle of Non-maleficence Ridley (1998) has thrown light over the ethical principle of non-maleficence that focuses on the least harm to patients (intentionally). For instance, it should be pointed out that certain measures have to be taken that reduces the chance of harm to patients. In addition, the non-maleficence principle also overlaps with due care theory that endorses the idea of care to patients through use of precautionary measures. In this particular case of Terry Schiavo, the patient was kept alive for many years with the help of feeding tube and doctors / medical staff confirmed zero improvement in her health. Obviously, the first attempt was to save Terry but when things did not go right, the husband requested jury in 1998 to alleviate his wife of miseries by granting permission for euthanasia. Indeed, the husband was first concerned with saving his wife’s life but after years of struggle by doctors followed by unsatisfactory results, he requested for euthanasia. In this way, the principle of non-maleficence was not violated; rather euthanasia could be justified amid unsatisfactory reports of Terry. In short, euthanasia led to least harm to Terry in this case although her parents opposed that. 2.3 - Principle of Beneficence The third ethical principle is known as beneficence that refers to choosing the best option so that greatest good could be done for patients and possibility of evil could be minimized (Beauchamp & Childress, 1994). For instance, it becomes evident from the case of Terry Schiavo that initially her doctors, parents and husband were all concerned with her recovery from coma to normal life. However, the results then led to use of feeding tube for greatest good of Terry, which should be viewed as the implementation of beneficence principle. Next, when Terry’s unconsciousness continued for many years, there was no rational choice other than euthanasia to reduce Terry’s pain and financial burden for beneficence of her family. 2.4 - Principle of Justice Ridley (1998) has explained the justice ethical principle that states that the decision-makers should choose alternatives and make decisions that are fair and that could be justified for all those associated with that case or dilemma. In simple words, the decisions should comply with different ethical approaches. Also, the just and ethical decisions avert the possibility of unrest in the society because the guilty is punished and innocents are protected. As far as Terry’s case is concerned, it should be emphasized that court’s permission for removal of her feeding tube was not a murder or killing of innocent because she was already a lifeless women who required a lot of personal care and financial costs. Had there been any possibility of her recovery, the court would have not accepted her husband’s claim and ordered for euthanasia. It should, therefore, be argued that decision about euthanasia was just and ethical because it was the only rational option that would lead to greatest good for patient as well as for her family members. In a nut shell, I would like to conclude that there had been no other ethical, just and legitimate solution except euthanasia for lifeless / unresponsive Terry because she was a comatose woman. For instance, the parents’ argument against euthanasia and keeping Terry alive could not be justified because the emotional element was involved. Quite unequivocally, what would have been other possibilities if Terry’s tube was not removed? Probably, the lifeless woman would have lasted for another few years, which means more care and more expenses (unnecessary indeed). Or probably a miracle would have happened and she had recovered. The first possibility is, obviously, what I have already discussed about financial side, while the second possibility has no real grounds. Hence, it is justified to argue that euthanasia was ethical in case of Terry; however, it would have been unethical if Terry had relatively higher probability of returning to normal life or, at least, becoming conscious and responsive to life events. 3. Reflection Initially, I used to consider euthanasia as illicit and unethical considering Locke’s principle of rights (right to life, property and independence). However, the extensive reading of four aforementioned bioethical principles and the review of Terry Schiavo’s case provided me an insight that there are some unique situations in which euthanasia becomes ethical. I would support my analysis by highlighting that that traffic sergeants and policemen obey the law of maximum speed for different streets; however, they could break it if they drive fast to save an innocent from criminals. This is exactly the same case with euthanasia, which is not about putting an end to life of every disabled or unconscious person; rather, there is dire need to first use all possible treatments and medical solutions for recovery. However, if the results are unsatisfactory (meaning no recovery at all) then euthanasia becomes ethical, moral and just because it is irrational to let lifeless patients suffer with no chances to returning to normalcy in the name of cure and right to live. In short, my perspective regarding euthanasia changed after this research study and now I could suggest euthanasia to families in future as one of the viable options in my medical career. References Economist Article. The sad case of Terri Schiavo. The Economist http://www.economist.com/node/3789436 Updated - April 11, 2008 [Online] Accessed - February10, 2010 Penslar, Robin. Research Ethics: Cases and Materials. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1995. Ridley, Aaron. Beginning Bioethics. New York: St. Martin's Press; 1998. Schiavo, Michael. Background on the Schiavo case. CNN Articles http://articles.cnn.com/2005-03-25/justice/schiavo.qa_1_michael-schiavo-robert-schindler-schiavo-case?_s=PM:LAW Updated - March 25, 2005 [Online] Accessed - February10, 2010 Beauchamp, Tom and Childress, J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 4th edition. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994. Read More