Key Ethical and Legal Issues of Euthanasia - Coursework Example

EUTHENASIA Name Institution Date EUTHENASIA Key ethical and legal issues Euthanasia is a practice that allows deliberate ending of one’s life to release an individual from pain or an intolerable suffering. It is always known as painless and easy death (Bourke, 2005,p.189-p.192).This action can be undertaken by the patient himself or by a medical representative, When such a practice is done it is called voluntary euthanasia, however, when nothing is done to prevent an individual from pain it is called negative euthanasia. When someone takes the action to cause death deliberately that is known as positive or active euthanasia. Currently the law does not permit the practice of euthanasia but the practice should be legalized because the patient is likely to experience less pain and suffering during her dying moments. If euthanasia could be allowed, members of the public could freely choose to end their lives so that they could be free from pain. Patients suffering from terminal diseases such as cancer can have a choice to either end or continue to suffer with the diseases they suffer from; they would choose the time they would like to end their lives. In reference to Khan,(2006).Cancer accounts for more than a quarter of total deaths that are reported in countries such as Australia, USA and Europe. Cancer is associated with chronic pain that make the victims go through a lot of trauma. Patients who suffer from the advanced stages of cancer should be given an opportunity to choose whether they want to continue to live or withstand the pain they are going through. In most cases such patients experience many symptoms such as fatigue, anxiety, nausea and mental haziness. It is not easy to eliminate any of the symptoms yet the patient will continue to suffer multiple body pains. In regards to Coppola, (2001).longtime suffering can cause distress to a terminally ill patient and can result in symptoms that are completely unpleasant which would probably be undignified in the final stage of the illness. In such cases, euthanasia comes in to act as relieve to the patient. To legitimatize euthanasia, guidelines that are special should be detailed and put in place to ensure that families are stopped from benefiting from the death of an individual. In Australia, there is high public support of euthanasia being a legal practice, almost three quarters of the total population support the fact that euthanasia can be practiced on a patient suffering from chronic pain just in case the terminally ill patient asks for it. This was as a result of Morgan Poll’s research that denoted if a patient was ill and hopeless with little chance of recovery and was experiencing chronic pain and he asked for euthanasia so that he or she would not wake up again. Would it be necessary for the medical practitioner to deny such a patient euthanasia? In the current years, the answer to Poll’s question has received more support with at least 92% and only 8% against the practice. These people argue that people should be given a free will to choose when to end their lives or when to live it since we live in a free society (Cox, 2009).being denied the chance to make such decisions implies that people are not able to make decisions concerning their own fate. The public generally believe that if euthanasia is policed properly it can render a person out of a life of suffering where such individual is in a less painful experience. It is argued that if a person would refuse treatment that will consequently lead to their death, it would still be justifiable if the same person is put out of chronic suffering and still achieve the end fate, death. Euthanasia means taking up someone’s life at his or her request. It therefore deals with death being the purpose and end result. Euthanasia can be either passive or active, whereby passive euthanasia is done when one is withdrawn from life supporting machines which was the only means that someone was alive Khan, W. (2006).However, passive euthanasia is very tricky as there are several means in which one is supported to life, for instance hydration and nutrition cannot be withheld since they are basic needs to life for one to continue living. There are other extraordinary means where there is use of complex means which are not primary priority for one’s survival. As a rule, such support can be discontinued if the medical procedures involved are very cumbersome, dangerous, disproportionate and extraordinary to the outcome that is expected. It cannot be concluded that death is intended by withholding or withdrawing medication, but according to Christian belief, it is better if an individual is allowed to die a natural death as it was intended by God. If medical withdrawal is made because the disease of the patient is getting worse then that becomes a natural death and not a direct killing because in such a case, it is the disease which is killing and not the person who is withdrawing the treatment. However, critics believe that if an individual’s death has been influenced by another then they break the commandment of God which instructs that “one should not kill”. However, the intentions of the medical practitioner are not to kill, but to save a human being from suffering Mackinnon, R. (2006).But still religious critiques do not justify such an act of lessening pain of a suffering patient. This is because some patients may not be in a position to make decisions by themselves but by relatives who might have lost hope in the recovery of the patient. They continue to argue that one cannot just do anything to their body since the human bodies belong to God. They say that God made the human being and knew exactly what they needed on this earth. Therefore human beings should leave everything to God as all that happens is for the reason of God. The church is totally against euthanasia because they believe that Jesus Christ suffered and endured the pain therefore also Christians are called upon to endure there suffering while on earth and that death should not be the solution. They continue to argue that Christians are called to be imitators of Christ and share in his passion. If human beings live, they live to the Lord and when they die they die to the lord. Both in death and life human beings belong to the Lord and only He has the right to choose an individual’s death time (Doran, 2004).Christians also believe that every human being has a purpose for which God destined him to perform. He is only one with the power to destroy or create life because he is the sole author of life. There is no right given to human beings to take away another’s life irrespective of the justifications given to support euthanasia because according to Christians faith, “you shall not kill” is not a suggestion but rather a commandment that ought to be respected irrespective of any reason. Christians believe that suffering as a Christian has many benefits, especially when one suffers during the last days. This gives Christians a chance to share in the suffering of Jesus Christ. Christians believe that suffering is a form of purgatory here on earth whereby one is punished while on earth so that they can go into heaven after their final death. Therefore euthanasia is prohibited as it cuts short God’s plan meant for individuals while earth. According to God’s law, Euthanasia is immoral in that what is looked at as a means that is extraordinary to sustain life is not clear though hydration and nutrition as the basic way to sustain life should be adhered to. Therefore, those who encounter suffering in this world are encouraged to have a faith that promises them the life in eternity. According to christian ethics this kind of faith will make the patient to face suffering with a positive outlook and let their pain be apart of their transition so that they are not relieved of it through mercy death.The argument is continued in that human beings have no authority over death but only God has. If the incurable and the elderly are assisted to commit suicide then it means that other groups who maybe going through psycholological torture such as the youth with depression will be welcomed to perform the same practise. According to Emmanuel, (2008).human must ask themselves questions such as where will the practise end, because individuals who would love to terminate their lives by mercy are those that are tend to be those who are completely handicapped to mentally retarted. The religious ethics suggest that if human beings continue to disrespect human lives and God, then the world will destroy itself Mackinnon, R. (2006). A right is a claim that is moral and but we have no right concerning death though death itself has a claim on life. Because of that, one should not act for the right which they lack. The thought of killing was rebuked by many christian scholars, that is, christian ethics greatly disregards euthanasia. The clergy warn that the world should be wary of those who are willing to terminate their lives on the ground that they are elderly and suffering or they are ill. They claim that evrybody is put in danger if the poor quality of life is justified by a mercy death as a way of ending it. It is practically the guise of dignified death or assisted suicide.According to christian ethics the human race is presented with either a blessing or a curse which is life and death. All the way there is an instruction to always choose life. Euthanasia lies out of the values held in the West and it has to incur huge social and personal tragedy because it involves an individual life being at risk. However, according to medical ethics, there is great support for the need of euthanasia because of relieve benefits it has to the suffering and to the affected members concerned with the ill person. Medically, euthanasia allows ailling people to have the chance to experience difnified death that has less pain and peace. Involuntary euthanasia is decided upon by the medical practitioner when they think that the patient in question has been sick long enough and letting such a patient to continue living is ony is only letting them continue experiencing pain and suffering while they are on life supporting machines. In this case the patient could be unconcious and hence unable to make their own decisions concerning euthanasia, so the physician makes such a decision (Ibrahim, 2008,p.128.p.135.).Just like in Australia, active euthanasia is not currently in place as it has been banned, however, in the state of Oregon, USA, it is still acceptable. Death with dignity, being enacted in 1997 in this state, gives permission to terminally ill people of Oregon to obtain home dosage designed to let them die with dignity and less pain. This would appear to be an easy assumption among the people of Oregon,U.S.A. that mercy killing to a morrally upright person who is communicating is very wrong. But most likely the person maybe undergoing painful living and suffering because of their ailments and therefore living a lesser quality life. Groups supporting euthanasia argue that the practise is appropriate because human beings posses a right to choose when to live and when to die. Therefore if tan individual chose death it should not be a problem as the life to be terminated belongs to the affected or victim Ibrahim, (2008,p.128.p135.).They argue that it becomes absolutely inhuman to refuse someone the right to die when one indeed undergoes through too much pain that is intolerable, chronic and causes them too much distress. Therefore, this allows the physicians to have mercy with the condition of such patients by allowing them a peaciful exit through euthanasia. The action of euthanasia should be undertaken if it has the best interest of all the parties and that no one will have his or her rights beeing violated. If that is the case, then it becomes a right decision to carry out the practise which will have the desired wish on both the ailing person and the affected family (Coppola, 2001).Therefore, in such a case euthenasia becomes legal if all the partisans agree that it is the best choise they should take in order for them to have peace. Sometimes looking at a friend or family member who is in pain causes so much distress because family always cares for each other and therefore they will empathise with the suffering of one of their own. In such a case, mercy killing will be a relief to both the sick and the affected members as they know their loved one is at peace and no longer experiences the pain he used to experience. Looking at the costs involved in medical treatments, euthanasia may provide a cost effective way which is less active. Where the reources deem to be scarce, the idea of not considering euthanasia might deprive the society at large of the essential resources that are required to help admit to people with curable ailments (Mackinnon, 2006, p.8-p10).It is found that people would want to be allowed a good death and as a reason euthanasia should be accorded to the person who might be in real pain and does not have to perservere or endure the pain. There it is a good action when such a person is saved from the immense pain in his or her last days. Inevitability of the situation also justifies euthanasia in that the practise happens occasionally on medical grounds and there is no need to keep the practise under the table. Therefore it would be advisable if it is only regulated and carried out in an organised and open manner so that it does not cause a public out cry.It’s also argued that death being not as bad, it can be made to come sooner so that it does not have to look really bad at all. Death is a state of rest so the sooner it comes to an ailing person the faster that person will get relieve. Therefore administering euthanesia is an inevitable practise considering that the person inquestion is going through much pain. To live is a gift so does dying, therefore people should not just discount euthanesia as a way of limiting life but as a way of showing compassion and mercy to those who are sufferring in so much pain. The end result has a relieve even to the people who were taking care of the ailing person in terms of emotional and financial resources that were vested on the person ailing (Naval, 2009). active and passive euthanasia is morally equivalent in that the patient might give his or her own view concerning terminating his or her life or the person may be in coma and is not able to give any view concerning the decision of terminating his or her life but the physician might be in a position to give such a directive to end his or her life so that to relieve such a person from pain. In a bid to disregard euthanesia, critics say that patients are always afraid of the pain and suffering they may have to undergo in future if there lives were not terminated. This therefore makes them to choose death may be because their judgement could be impaired. If there is any releave that can be given to their suffering and a holistic care given to such patients then they can be in a position to judge soundly what value they still have to continue living. According to Partterson, (2006).patients may opt for euthanasia simply because in their last stages of their sickness the symptoms are scary, therefore, they may deny themselves of the final stage of growth. The family or the care giver should speak encouraging words to the patient so that they can re-assure them of the love they have for them to continue living.Euthenasia undermines medical excellence in the fact that the physicians involved in the practice do not have interest in the palliative care. As a result, it becomes easier for the doctor to be in a position to administer euthanasia rather than learning the required techniques that are good for caring for those who are almost dying. In reference to Doran, (2004).This tend to be against since it results to making of bad laws. Bad laws in a way that those who promote euthanasia have already suffered agony from the death of a loved one and did not have the benefit of having their loved one receive a palliative care. In the quest for such a law, the answer would be to improve the standards of care giving and not to change the law to promote euthanesia because some people may not need it or it might be passively done on a patient who is in a comma for long and may soon recover but his or her life could be cut short just before the recovery.The decision of a person to end their lives through euthanasia may have lifelong disturbing effects on the other people in their lives. Those left behind may feel bitterness, anger and guilt. They would only let their loved one die through the natural means so as to save them from such agony. Conclusion In conclusion, euthanasia is a practise that holds both negative and positive views in the society. The medical practioners will defend euthenasia in the bid that they are saving their patient from too much suffering and giving them a dignified death that is peaceful and pain free.The patients themselves may opt for euthanesia if they are afraid of dying an agonizing death from the symptoms they are likely to face in their last stages of growth. Therefore they opt to end their lives with less pain. Even though it may leave their families in bitterness, anger and guilt.Christian ethics concerning the value and purpose of life are against the practise of euthenasia for they argue that life was meant to be lived as planned by God and that no one was to take away his life unless it is a time destined by God. God wants humans to live and even suffer while on earth for even Jesus suffered while on earth. Therefore doing that will enable the believers to associate with passion of christ. This is however contrary to medical ethics which believe that mercy killing is inevitable if the patient is in great pain and that they would soon naturally die, hence speeding up their death is essential to let them be relieved from pain. References Bourke, C. (2005). Voluntary Active Euthanasia: Is there any Place for it in Modern Day Medicine? Journal of Family Practice.23 (12) 189-192. Coppola, M (2001). "Accuracy of Primary Care and Hospital-Based Physicians' Predictions of Elderly Outpatients' Treatment Preferences with and Without Advance Directives," Archives Of Internal Medicine 161 (3) 431-40. Cox, P. (2009)."Advance Directives and the Patient Self-Determination Act" Journal of Nursing General Approach, 5 (16) 45-47. Doran, J. (2004). "Palliative Care and Advanced Directives" Journal of Medical Ethics, 4 (11) 111-114 Emanuel, L. (2008). "Living Wills Can Help Doctors And Patients Talk About Dying," Western Journal Of Medicine, 17 (12) 368. Ibrahim, N. (2008). The Ethics of Euthanasia, Australian Medical Student Journal 33(21) 128-135 Khan, W. (2006). Euthanasia and Ethical Arguments: Human Dignity at Stake in Respectable and Legal Way, Retrieved 8 September 2013, from: www.medicotips.com/euthanasia/uit/ Mackinnon, R. (2006). The question of Euthanasia, Right or Wrong- Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association, 2 (13) 8 -10 Naval, D. (2009). Ethical Decisions in End Of-Life Care, Journal of Nursing Ethics, 123(6) 344-350. Patterson, F (2008).Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: A Liberal Approach versus the Traditional Moral View. Journal of Medicine, 4 (13) 176- 182 Read More