Pediatric Euthanasia - Essay Example

s Pediatric euthanasia Pediatric euthanasia is perhaps one of the most controversial issues and is currently being debated allaround Canada. The legalization of pediatric euthanasia or physician aided suicide on children or infants constitutes the most debated issue among pediatrics. Proposals to amend the laws on legalization of pediatric euthanasia have been on the rise in recent times. The legislative committee that examines such pediatric aspects is based in Quebec. The legislative committee is known as the “La Commission spéciale sur la question de mourir dans la dignité” (Van 50). The primary focus of this paper is to discuss pediatric euthanasia in addition to the consequences of legalization of euthanasia in the pediatric field. The law that legalizes euthanizing children in nations practicing it insists that it is only applicable if the child is under unbearable and constant suffering. Many people, however, view it as a (PAS) a physician assisted suicide instead of an involuntary killing of authorized patients legalized by the Groningen protocols developed in Netherlands. Apparently, the children ask the doctor to help them die. The law requires a pediatric patient to show some level of discernment in order to be euthanized. This is what causes a lot of debates and controversies since children or infants might not be able to make such decisions. This is a result of the pain or agony the children and infants are under or their level of maturity (Blendon 2660). Adults are not keenly scrutinized like children since adults can even request support in dying for reasons that are not related with pain. Euthanasia versus end-of-life welfare One aspect that the committee noted was that there were several confusions between end of life welfare and euthanasia especially on withdrawal of palliative sedation and treatments. Euthanasia is the act of deliberately killing another person. It can be with their assent or request, which would be voluntary euthanasia and we also have the involuntary euthanasia that would be as a result of the person not being able to give an appropriate consent. The intention is to kill the patient with the objective of preventing unmanageable problems that pediatric patients will face when they grow up. By withdrawing palliative sedation and treatment, the physician intends to relieve suffering and pain but not to murder the patient (Beauchamp 200). Children and Infants obviously, cannot give an informed consent about their palliative sedation and treatment being withdrawn and therefore death. Thus, they do not have a say if their life is terminated by a physician, parent or guardian. Netherlands and Euthanasia Most nations currently do not have enough experience to systematically, legally and actively legalize euthanizing children and infants. In order to understand this practice, other nations need to look elsewhere where the practice is being implemented. This provides some of learning that can be adopted by countries that have not implemented pediatric euthanasia. Netherlands is a perfect example of a nation that has experience in the practice of euthanizing children and infants. In 2002, Netherlands passed the Euthanasia Act. Famous doctors like Sauer and Verhagen conducted a research to find out how many infants had been euthanized since it was legalized (Van 99).The results indicated that between 1998 and 2005, 22incidents of infants and children being euthanized were recorded and all were suffering from Spina Bifida. Results also indicated that in Netherlands, each year almost 20 infants were euthanized but only 3 were reported, a contrary to the Dutch laws. As a result of the underreporting, the pediatricians formed a Groningen protocol. The protocol listed the types of groups of infants that would to be listed for euthanasia. The first infants on the list were those who had no chance of surviving. Some of these were children with lung, kidney and heart under development or failures. These are the common problems that challenge newborns during their earliest stages of growth and development. The second infants on the list were those that need a lot of intensive care, those living poor quality life and had poor prognosis. An example is infants with oxygen deprivation, brain or organ damage (Blendon 2659). The third protocol handled infants with hopeless prognosis who according to their doctors and physicians were unbearably suffering. Many people argued that the infants would not give an informed consent therefore there is a need to adopt other alternative methods that do not involve euthanasia. Children, unlike adults, lack experience and do not have grounds on which they would support their euthanizing. Some scholars even state that physician assisted suicide is an acceptable alternative for ill adults but not for infants or children. Infants might not be able to choose between unbearable pain and death. However, their parents act as custodians of their decision making, and thus make such decisions for them. A quick review of the above mentioned Groningen protocols reveals a lot about the Canadian medical and ethical doctrine system. The two protocols namely the “poor quality life” and “poor prognosis” were largely criticized as they concentrated mostly on infants suffering from Spina bifida. Spina fida is a complication arising from malformation of the neural tube and therefore causing its closure. The complication made so many infants to be euthanized. Scholars and critics were keen to correct the mistake made on the issue (Van 300). First, the condition Spina bifida is curable through surgical methods and its side effects that revolve around complications in ambulating and urinating can be dealt with. This was backed up by evidence of children who had survived the Spina bifida and even evaded its disabilities and are currently living a happy life. If she was born in Netherlands then she would be no more as a result of the Groningen protocols. Secondly, euthanizing seems to be culturally biased in Netherlands whereas other nations such as North America seem to have a different approach. Other nations aim at ensuring the child lives a normal life. Thirdly, though the Groningen protocols and Euthanasia Acts have improved the reporting of euthanasia cases research still shows that 20% of the cases are still not reported to the authorities. The cases also have not been prosecuted even though they have broken the law (Beauchamp 78). Many people are certain that once a specific mentality is made legal then this automatically opens up the Pandor’s box. More consequences surrounding the mentality are bound to cause controversial. Subjective arguments Arguments about poor quality life or poor prognosis can be very biased and therefore they are not suitable bases for making ethically related decisions. If someone listens keenly on what the disabled community thinks about the issue of quality life then you realize that their ideology and perception is very different from the normal people’s perspective who,luckily do not grieve. Most people handling children’s homes for the disabled can confirm that though the children’s quality of life might be unacceptable they still bring great joy to their friends and family (Van 67). Many people felt that the issue was rather provocative even to those dealing with the disabled and the handicapped. No one has the right to make such judgments for other people. The argument of poor prognosis as well does not justify euthanasia as ethical. Prognosis predicting the results of a specific disease is not exact science. Physicians might be so certain that an infant might not survive neuromuscular disorder, but that can change drastically. The Groningen protocol does not give that slim opportunity a chance and eliminates it by euthanizing. No parent or physician would stand to watch an infant suffering unbearably (Blendon 2661). Therefore, the last category of the protocol “suffering unbearably” seems to take advantage of the sad scenario that seems to inflict a lot of misery on the parents and the physicians of the child or infant. Modern analgesia and proper palliative care can alleviate and diminish the pain and thus evading the possibility of euthanizing an infant. Many people agree that euthanizing is not the best practice available and opting to use palliative method might be the best method. Palliative care for the infants unfortunately has not developed well in neonatal nurseries and requires more funding. The only drawback facing Palliative care is the mentality evident in Netherlands where instead of the healthcare system improving palliative care it advocates for euthanasia practices. The question that arises generally about pediatric euthanasia is whether someone else can really make a judgment about another person’s life on whether they should die or live. Margaret Somerville was once quoted saying that damage was being done to medicine if medical doctors were being permitted to kill. The thought of a nurse or physician intentionally killing a patient is unacceptable to the society’s trust, normal people, physicians themselves and the medicine profession as a whole. We should adamantly, categorically and steadfastly refuse to combine the roles of executioner and healer as it abuses the principles of medicine. Pediatric euthanasia should be battled and fought against by everyone who has concern for the human race. Infants should be given a chance to live because their lives may take different shapes and succeed in the future. Pediatric euthanasia, therefore, should be banned. Works cited Van, Zwienen. Medical Ethics in Antiquity: Philosophical Perspectives on Abortion and Euthanasia., Netherlands: Dordrecht Simon & Schuster, 2008. Print. Blendon, Knox.Should physicians aid their patients in dying?Journal of the Groningen protocols.18.9(2010): 2658–2662.Print. Beauchamp,Campbell.Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print. Read More