Non-Voluntary Active Euthanasia - Report Example

Non-Voluntary Active Euthanasia

Introduction

The legalization of non-voluntary active euthanasia is a highly debatable issue. It practice in the United States is questionable. In non-voluntary active euthanasia, a doctor can decide to end the life of a patient without the patient’s consent. In non-voluntary euthanasia, a doctor or a medical specialist tends to withhold special medical treatment or technology that can be used in treating a patient without consulting the patient. There are severe medical cases that have been dealt with through the application of non-voluntary active euthanasia. Due to the severity of the patients’ illnesses the patients are unable to be consulted about the procedure since they are usually in a vegetative state. The application of this procedure has been a major issue of discussion in the medical field and different countries. The United States of America has already legalized non-voluntary passive euthanasia, and it is already being applied in the medical field. The topic under study has to be analyzed critically by assessing the importance of the medical procedure, legal, practical and theoretical issues surrounding it. The legality of the procedure will be determined by the ethical and moral reasoning. This issue raises a lot of ethical concerns. Non-voluntary active euthanasia has a positive impact on the medical field, and it should be legalized.

Demonstration of moral reasoning

The government should legalize the application of non-voluntary active euthanasia in the medical field. The government should legalize it the same way that it has legalized the application of non-voluntary passive euthanasia in the country’s medical sector. The application of this medical procedure helps to eliminate the suffering that critically ill patients go through. In the case of children, they cannot be consulted on the procedure since they do not understand what it is and are unable to communicate (Dobscha, 2008). Individuals in a vegetative state such as being in a coma are unable to be consulted by the doctors on the procedure. The doctors have to decide for themselves and end the patient’s life in situations where there is no hope of the patient getting better.

The government should consider legalizing the procedure since it is viewed to be more merciful than the application of non-voluntary passive euthanasia. Non-voluntary active euthanasia aims at eliminating a patient’s suffering while non-voluntary passive euthanasia subjects a patient to more pain (Quill, 2008). By denying patients special medical treatment in cases of severe illnesses the patients tend to be exposed to more suffering. The government should consider legalizing non-voluntary active euthanasia since it is considerate of patients’ welfare as compared to non-voluntary passive euthanasia. The ending of a critically ill patient’s life through the procedure prevents further suffering on the family members of the patient.

The application of non-voluntary active euthanasia helps the family members of a patient to avoid heavy hospital bills. This procedure of ending a critically ill patient’s life reduces the period that he is admitted to the hospital (Rachels, 2007). The medical bills do not accrue further as compared to the application of non-voluntary passive euthanasia whereby the patient continues being admitted to the hospital. The application of this procedure with the aim of reducing medical bills is appropriate when the condition of the patient is observed to be getting worse, or it is not improving.

The utilitarian ethical theory focuses on the outcomes of individual’s action and is not much concerned with the type of action applied to achieve the outcomes (Downie, 2010). The theory, in this case, entails that the doctor should consider the effects that the procedure will have to other involved parties apart from the patient. The decision of family members is prioritized since they are the ones who are directly affected by the situation. The family members and other involved parties should come to a conclusive decision that will suit them, and the doctor should perform the procedure if they wish so.

The virtue-based theory of ethics focuses on the moral values of an individual rather than his ethical duties, rules and the expected outcomes (Keown, 2007. In this situation, the doctor should consider what he feels right and act according to his will. The doctor is not supposed to dwell on other involved parties’ decisions in the situation but should come to a conclusive decision on his own. The doctor should be guided by his moral and life values that define right and wrong based on his perception. The doctor is not supposed to be concerned much with the consequences of his actions since he will be defined by his integrity level on implementing the actions that are appropriate to him.

The utilitarian ethical theory is more appropriate in this case than other theories since it is not based on a single individual. The theory is considerate of all the involved parties in the situation. The outcomes of the doctor’s actions have a major impact on the lives of family members, and he should be considerate of how his actions will affect them afterwards. The utilitarian ethical theory in this situation advocates for the application of non-voluntary active euthanasia over non-voluntary passive euthanasia. The application of non-voluntary passive euthanasia has more negative effects than non-voluntary active euthanasia since the patient will be exposed to more suffering.

Helen Keller in the year 1915 spoke defending non-voluntary active euthanasia. She argued that individuals with severe disabilities would likely opt for death rather than to be exposed to further suffering (Lewis, 2007). She stated that non-voluntary active euthanasia would relieve the family members of a critically ill patient since putting the patient to die would reduce the hospital bills. The heavy medical bills of a patient who is admitted to the hospital for a long time strains the family financially. She concluded that putting a patient to death would relieve the family members of the financial burden.

Objection and response

The American Council on Disability has challenged the application of the non-voluntary euthanasia in the medical field. The chairperson of the Councils states that he believes that it is inappropriate to subject individuals to death without their permission. Infants cannot be consulted by on the application of the procedure hence the doctors should not take their lives due to their inability to consent or refuse to it. The right to life as stated in the country’s constitution does not allow for the taking of life through this procedure. Human rights’ advocates in the country indicate that human life should be preserved no matter what since human beings are not the creators of life. Non-voluntary active euthanasia cannot be compared to non-voluntary passive euthanasia since they are two different medical concepts. Non-active euthanasia is aimed at ending life while non-voluntary passive euthanasia protects life even though not in an appropriate manner. Though the doctors impose further suffering on patients by applying non-voluntary euthanasia, they do not have an objective of letting the patients die. The main objective of non-voluntary active euthanasia is to end a patient’s life arguing that it takes the suffering away (Manninen, 2006). Though the application of non-voluntary active euthanasia is aimed at reducing a patient’s suffering, patients especially infants should not be subjected to it. Some individuals including doctors argue that it is inappropriate to take someone’s life without their consent.

Conclusion

In summary, non-voluntary active euthanasia has a positive impact on the medical field, and the government should consider legalizing it. This medical procedure is considerate towards the patients, the family members and other involved parties in the patients’ medical situation. The procedure takes away the suffering of the patients resulting from severe illnesses that they suffer. Non-voluntary active euthanasia is focused mainly on taking a patient’s life arguing that it eliminates suffering rather than preserving life. The procedure cannot be compared to non-voluntary passive euthanasia since they are two different medical concepts. The ethical theories are a major guideline to the application of this procedure since they advocate for different actions from doctors.