Is Active Euthanasia a Medical Negligence or Assisted Dying - Assignment Example

Topic: Medical Negligence and Malpractice (Active Euthanasia/ Assisted Dying) A. With the incorporation of Human Rights into the Law of the Land, thefundamental right to life must extend to a general right to die. To what extent has the judiciary sympathized with this position or is there a need for parliamentary intervention in respect of Euthanasia? The ‘right to life’ is a widely accepted human right and moral value; formalized in legal codes which is exercised universally (British Humanist Association, 2007). But for those who are terminally ill and enduring great pain and suffering, and who opt to curtail length of life to prevent further agony, the question is, do they have the right to die? Euthanasia is a popular and complex issue of ethics in the medical arena. Within the context of the Western world, there exists varying opinions about the morality of Euthanasia and whether it should be legalized or not. The United Kingdom in particular considers Euthanasia as illegal, a homicide offense (Akinola et al, 2002). Yet in other neighboring countries, laws are much more considerate of this issue. In 2002, the Netherlands passed a euthanasia law, making it the first country in the world to decriminalized euthanasia. However, this practice is limited only to those patients with incurable conditions. Likewise, the physicians must follow strictly a set of guidelines to avoid prosecution. The same law exists now in Luxembourg and Belgium. Moreover, in Switzerland, assisted suicide is allowed as long as the person (relatives or friends) assisting the patient is doing it in behalf of the patient’s voluntary intention or request and for his own self interest(CMAJ, 2009). The Right to Die is what the proponents of Euthanasia argue to the policymakers for consideration. Living a quality life also entails how it ought to end according to the humanists. In which case, the humanists strongly perceived voluntary euthanasia as the most moral and rightful course of action to preserve quality even up to the end of an individual’s life (British Humanist Association, 2007). As stressed by Akinola et al (2002) in their article, every person has a freedom to morally choose the way they wanted their life to become and such freedom encompasses the right to choose how they wanted to experienced death. For the vulnerable people such as the patients who suffer so much pain and agony caused by their illness, such freedom is not possible. They need help or assistance from other people to provide the means for them. Nonetheless, this is not easy because of a number of factors including the possible consequences of jurisdiction, making the assistant at risk. Apart from the religious sector and the Christian society’s perception that assisting suicide is immoral in spite of the patient’s willful intention to die. A support from the public regarding Euthanasia is evident in the society of Great Britain. However, formal legalization of Euthanasia is still in vain, considering the differing opinions amongst members of the European Union. Further impediment is the limitation of jurisdiction of the European Union’s Charter of Rights which also makes it improbable that such issue will enter the European Court of Justice. Therefore, the issue of Euthanasia is currently brought to the Parliament which is still awaiting its outcome. Precipitating change in euthanasia policy is stiff due to the existence of strong Christian tradition across Europe. More so, the differing views on human rights add up to the complexities of the issue (Pridgeon, 2006). In the study of Huxtable and Campbell (2003), they have enlisted three classical arguments concerning Euthanasia: First, the argument on Sanctity of Life Position which the religious sectors are strongly proposing. Second, Euthanasia if legalized can be utilized as a legit response to suffering or low quality of life. Third and last, patient’s wishes and own concerns are under consideration, implying the obligation to respect patient’s autonomy. According to Woods (2002), such autonomy refers to exercising ethics in respect to one’s own capacity and freedom of choice. In the case of Terry Schiavo, her tubes (supporting her feeding) were withdrawn and after thirteen days she died of starvation and dehydration. Being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), which is still undefined whether people who suffer this condition feels pain, the act of withdrawing her only life-support which cause her such potential unfounded suffering is personally perceived by Vaknin (2008) as gruesome and morally wrong. In connection to other arguments, slippery slope or that which states if euthanasia is once legitimised, moral boundaries regarding death deteriorates (i.e. involuntary euthanasia ) (Vermaat, 2002). Initially, the complete misuse of the term ‘Euthanasia’ happened during the Holocaust Regime of Nazi, where mentally ill and those with congenital abnormalities are murdered. Since then, the word “euthanasia” is a taboo in Germany and in other related regions (Nicholson, 2000). Slippery slope argument is constantly presented by opponent of Euthanasia making the issue even more complicated for they fear that euthanasia may lead to the abuse of others to use it as means to murder (Akinola et al, 2002). In the United Kingdom, active euthanasia and assisted suicide is not permitted by law. This has been clearly and effectively illustrated in the case of Mrs. Pretty, who suffered from motor-neuron disease (MND) and due to her condition, she asked for her husband’s immunity from prosecution if he is to assist her in ending her life. Yet, the Higher Courts ruled against her and in favor of the DPP’s argument (Akinola et al, 2002). With the existing law in the United Kingdom, prohibiting exercise of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide, it is inevitable that some patients go to other neighboring countries where such practice is allowed (CMAJ, 2009) In a study by Clark et al (2001), the views and opinions of British geriatricians regarding active voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted dying have been obtained. The results implicated that majority of the participants considered the two practices as unethical and unjustifiable. The proponents of the study however, perceived that this may be true in the context of outside environmental factors including policies and laws governing such issue. Yet, within the confines of the patient-family and doctor relationships, a different opinion may be attained, reflecting the responses of the minority in the survey. Within the context of United Kingdom, the position held for voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide remains the same. Jurisdiction of the European Charter of Human Rights is limited as it also exhibits the conservative judicial activities, expressing hesitance of involvement in any controversial issue such as euthanasia that might interfere with state policies (Pridgeon, 2006). Thus, a parliament intervention is sought by the proponents. Yet, its outcome is still unknown. And whilst many people are suffering from terminal illness and other incurable diseases, differing opinions about the manner death must be manifested and experienced by the sufferers will still continue to hound all sectors, the health care professionals, families, policy makers and lawyers, ethicists and the general people. In conclusion, Euthanasia will remain a complicated issue of ethics and values pertaining to how human being ought to experience death. In spite the generally accepted fact – ‘the right to life’ , the notion that it needs to extend to accepting also the ‘right to die’, still require a deeper analysis from different perspectives to be able to come up with a consensus that will truly pacify endless verbal battles and heated arguments surrounding the issue of morality of euthanasia. 2. Voluntary Euthanasia/Assisted Suicide? Identify its reason, assumptions; clarify the meaning and argument for euthanasia in the society today. The original meaning of Euthanasia meant ‘gentle and easy death’. However, in current times, this now refers to ‘the act of inducing an easy death’ (British Humanist Association, 2007) or the deliberate act of terminating another individual’s life prematurely, either by direct or passive and voluntary or non-voluntary means (Vaknin, 2008). There are different forms of euthanasia. Direct Active Euthanasia involves specific action to cause death of the patient (e.g. drug overdose); Indirect Active Euthanasia involves giving the patient a palliative which include strong sedative that will subsequently lead to death. On the other hand, Passive Euthanasia refers to the withdrawal of life-support or other medical treatment, either at the persons request or not. Whilst, assisted suicide involves another individual to provide patient’s the means to end their lives (CMAJ, 2009). Nevertheless, Non-voluntary euthanasia is a euphemism for murder (Vaknin, 2008). This particular concept is what the opponents of euthanasia fears about if it is legalized (i.e. Slippery slope argument). In assisted suicide, patients may request for their husband as in the case of Mrs. Pretty (Akinola et al, 2002) or any relative or friends for assistance in obtaining the ‘desired’ goal since they are incapable of doing it on their own. Physicians on the other hand may also perform assistance to patient who wishes to end their lives to no further experience pain and suffering as caused by their illness. Typically, this is provided through living wills which is allowed in certain countries like Denmark and is supported by the British Medical Association (Nicholson, 1993). In most countries, direct active euthanasia is not legal. But the indirect active euthanasia is accepted and allowed in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium. Humanists are the forefront proponents of euthanasia. They live by moral principles which are positioned on the ground of reason and respect of others. Prime concern is to preserve quality of life and respect autonomy of the individual (British Humanist Association, 2007). They strongly perceived that euthanasia is the most appropriate course of action to maintain dignity of the patient even up to his death. However, the opponents argued that such concept of euthanasia is against morality as it destroys the very sanctity of life. It is also feared that it could initiate the uncontrolled utilization of this practice even in circumstances that does not require it. Making euthanasia an easy option to terminate one’s life due to suffering or low quality of life, as such it may also lead to non-voluntary euthanasia which is comparative to what the Nazis did during the holocaust regime. Moreover, another significant issue is the obligation to respect patient’s autonomy or the right of the patient to choose whether he wanted to continue to struggle in life and let the course of fate dominates the end of his life. Nevertheless, this very concept is also used by the proponents in the sense that they perceived that quality of life entails the quality of experiencing death for an individual. Therefore, sufferers of long-term illness who wish to end life earlier and in dignity are expressed as their fundamental right which is likely be addressed by euthanasia (Huxtable and Campbell, 2003). References ‘A Humanist discussion of …EUTHANASIA’. 2007. British Humanist Association. Available [Online] at www.humanism.org.uk Akinola, A, Freter, C, Rettkowski, F, Wienrich, K, et al. 2005. ‘A comparative view of euthanasia in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Germany’. Journal of Acadmic Legal Studies. Vol. 1, pp. 28-31 Clark, D, Dickinson, G, Lancaster, CJ, Noble, TWB, et al. 2001 Sept. ‘UK geriatricians’ attitudes to active voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted death’. Age and Ageing. Research Library. Vol. 30, No. 5, p. 395 Huxtable, R and Campbell, AV. 2003. ‘Palliative care and the euthanasia debate: recent developments’. Palliative Medicine. Vol. 17, pp. 94-96 ‘Legal consensus eludes Europe’. 2009 Feb 3. Canadian Medical Association Journal. Vol. 180. No. 3, pp. 282-283. DOI:10.1503/cmaj.082067 Nicholson, RH. 1993 May. ‘A Quick and Painless Death’. The Hastings Center Report. Vol. 23, No. 3, p. 5 Nicholson, RH. 2000. ‘ No painless death yet for European euthanasia debate’. The Hasting Center Report. Research Library. Vol. 30, No. 3, p.7 Pridgeon, JL. 2006. ‘Euthanasia legislation in the European Union: is a Universal law possible?’. European law. Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 45-60 Vaknin, S. 2008 Jan 25. ‘Euthanasia and the right to die’. The Free Library. Available [Online] at http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Euthanasia and the Right to Die-a01073851709 Vermaat, E. 2002. “Euthanasia” in the Reich: Lessons for today? .ETHICS AND MEDICINE, available [Online] at http://www.ethicsandmedicine.com/18/1/18-1-vermaat.htm Woods, S. 2002. ‘Respect for autonomy and palliative care’, in Ten Have, H. and Clark, D (eds.), The Ethics of Palliative Care: European perspectives. Buckingham, Open University Press. Pp. 153, 154. Read More