The Right to Decide - Essay Example

The Right to Decide is the Most Important Right What is life James Rachels, of Alabama Philosophy said that "there is nothing sacred or morally significant about being a human being with biological life." According to her, biological life is unimportant if seen from an ethical point of view. She added that biographical life is more important, defined by "the sum of one's aspirations, decision, activities, projects, and human relationships." (Moreland) J.P. Moreland did not agree with Rachels argument so he gave two instances wherein her conditions are not applicable. One, there are beings who are although biologically alive, are not able to have a biographical life because of bodily processes. For example, an infant whose mental development has not yet fully started cannot process complicated thoughts such as what Rachels prescribed. Another one is a comatose patient who for a time cannot think because of the current state of his brain and body. And two, there are other species besides ours who have a biographical sense because they too have thoughts, emotions etc. According to Moreland, they probably have more value than humans who have only the so-called biological life. Life as we know it now Advances in the 21st century have allowed both doctors and patients to have more options regarding different diseases and conditions. Different methods of resuscitation, ventilation and testing procedures have made the many lives easier. However, the right to withhold or discontinue treatment has brought unto people the emergence of ethical problems. In the past, the concept of being "brain dead" was unheard of, but nowadays the idea has saved many recipients of organ donors. The Church has been an active participant in the debates of different medical practices. Organ donation, pain management and natural death are all concepts that they are okay with since it deals with life and its different dimensions. On the other hand, abortion and euthanasia both deal with death, effectively exterminating life. The Hypothesis: Traditional medical ethics as justification for patient autonomy Ethics may be defined as the basic principles of the right action, specifically in reference to a certain person or profession. Ethical compliance and professional competence come hand in hand especially in the practice of medicine, which coincidentally deals with the issue of life. In the article "Traditional Principles of Medical Ethics," discusses how religious principles apply to patient care. The recent legalizations of abortion in some parts of the world have aroused disagreements in the medical and religious practices. Moreover, normal people and citizens have become either disillusioned or confused regarding their own predicaments on the issue. And with a dynamic society such as ours, to agree unanimously on moral issues is quite impossible to achieve. Biomedical Ethics or Bioethics which applies to both people's ethical and moral principles regarding issues concerned with human life is then considered. As the "Traditional Principles of Medical Ethics" article said, "Western medicine was founded on our Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman heritage, where the sanctity of life and the dignity of the human person are paramount for decision-making in patient care." The article also mentioned seven principles of medical ethics: a Moral Code and Moral Justification, the Doctor-Patient Relationship, Patient Autonomy, Beneficence (the Good Samaritan), Non-Malificence (Do No Harm), Justice, and Moral Integrity. According to the code of ethics, all of these seven must go together in order to achieve the ideal type of patient care. The Moral Code and Moral Justification guide the physician in whatever he does. The bible clearly declares the sanctity of life, saying that we were created in God's image and likeness. And as all of us were created in such a manner, we are supposedly called to respect the dignity of each one's claim to life. Of course if we were to talk about life, one specific rule from the Ten Commandments would have to be mentioned. This commandment is "Thou shall not kill (Exodus 20:13)." Another command in connection with this, also from the Bible - specifically Leviticus 19:18, is the order to love one's neighbor as though he/she were you. In I Corinthians 6:19, St. Paul taught the people that the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit so we should take good care of it. "Traditional Principles of Medical Ethics" discussed how philosophers of ancient Greece pondered on the issue of life. Plato said that the soul that was trapped in a person's body would be released when he/she dies. On the other hand, Aristotle saw the soul to be the vital half of a being's body. In modern times, medical practitioners take the Hippocratic Oath, based on the thinking and doings of Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine. The said oath prescribes all medical practitioners to do no harm to their patients, specifically inflicting pain or death, which basically distinguishes the essence of the profession. The same profession which is trying to separate itself from the beliefs it was founded upon. On the other hand, the Doctor-Patient Relationship highlights trust in one another. Every patient would trust their doctor to discuss their options and give the right recommendation concerning the patient's medical condition. The doctor, in his end, should consider everything regarding the patient in order to effectively care for him/her. Consent scratches the discussion of this paper. The patient, on the premise that he/she is in the condition to do so, decides his/her fate in a medical procedure. This highlights the power of a person over his/her life, allowing him to choose to receive treatment or not. And although a patient's best interest cannot be qualified to its fullest extent by anyone, the patient still has the power to deem it so. The third principle, namely Patient Autonomy, supports this idea. The thought of determining one's own fate is practiced in most democracies. Accepting or refusing treatment is part of this right. Allowing the natural course of events to take place is also included in this right even if some medical practitioners would see this as stepping over their sworn responsibility. The principle of beneficence or the act of helping others specifically pinpoints this sworn responsibility. Coming to the rescue of the sick or the injured is what a doctor does, like how the Good Samaritan did in the bible. Non-Malificence stresses the importance of the Hippocratic Oath, forbidding medical practitioners to do harm to anyone. This means that whatever treatment or procedure a patient may need, it should not cause him/her, not of the doctor can prevent it. The patient should always be the important part of the equation, not how long a treatment would take, how hard it is or how expensive a procedure is. The sixth principle of medical ethics according to the "Traditional Principles of Medical Ethics" is Justice which grants a human being the same rights that others have, ensuring equal treatment. This supports the right of a person to decide whether one is able to bear pain or whether he/she wants to. But no one must be denied treatment if one wants and needs it. Moral Integrity is the last of the seven principles. This describes the doctor or physician as someone who must exhibit virtues that a good member of a moral community should. These virtues include honesty, decency, humility, and respect - all of which would allow a patient to exercise his/her rights in deciding his/her fate. The world view on the right to life The issue of the right to live or die has been hounding the medical, moral and religious world for a long time now. Issues such as euthanasia, self-defense, genocide, suicide, homicide, abortion and capital punishment are just a few of those which have wreaked havoc in societies all over the world. For purposes of this paper, the right to life basically implies that any human being who was bestowed life, has the right to claim and take control of it, effectively protecting one's flame from not being extinguished. And in this paper, it is the author's prerogative to explore the right to make the decision as to what one's life would end up as. Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says that "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life." This in turn, entitles the citizens of any United Nations member country the right to live. Moreover, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said in article three that everyone has the "right to life, liberty and security of person." However, countries have a different take on matters concerning the life of their people. The United States for example, assures their people, through their Declaration of Independence, that their lives shall be protected, as it is an unalienable right. In Europe, their laws give consideration regarding self-defense in all forms and withholding from capital punishment. The right to live and die Since time immemorial, we have argued that every human being has the inalienable right to life. But as a counterargument to his, some critics have said that if we had the right to live, then we also have the right to die as rational beings. According to Professor of Philosophy Anthony Grayling, the right to life does not just mean the right to exist, but implies the right to a minimum level of life. ("The right to live gives us a right to die") He added that if anyone feels that he/she is living under this level, then he/she can demand to end this insufficiency by taking his/her own life as well as demand for help in doing so. Suicide is another example where society seems to recognize the right of a person to end his/her life since suicide survivors are not punished for attempting such ventures. Refusing medical treatment and allowing seriously ill patients to draw up last wills are just subtle indicators that people are actually in favor of people choosing to end it all. The biggest problem that medical practitioners have here is when a patient actively seeks their help to end his/her life. And although there is a little difference between stopping treatment and giving treatment to induce death, the end result still ends with the patient dying - a situation which places doctors in a bad place. The most perfect example of this is euthanasia. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, euthanasia is "either painlessly putting to death or failing to prevent death from natural causes in cases of terminal illness or irreversible coma." Obviously, there is a great deal of problem when it comes to resolving who holds the power to decide or object to a dying person's life. According to "The 'Right to Die' vs. the 'Right to Live'," euthanasia may be active, which means intentionally doing an action directly resulting in a person's death known more popularly as mercy killing or assisted suicide while passive euthanasia is simply stopping or refusing treatment. Aside from these types, euthanasia may be voluntary (decided by the patient alone), non-voluntary (patient is incapable of judgment, choice is done by someone else) and involuntary (patient wishes to live but is not allowed to). Now, there is a need to discuss or at least mention these types of euthanasia because these clearly outline the factors that are considered for something to not become murder. Intention is important because it shows whose interests would be served, and the patient's interests should always come first. Consent is always needed in deciding life or death matters, especially if a patient cannot do it for himself. The relatives, not the doctors should be the ones to decide. Freedom should also be centered in discussions like these. The patient should not be subjected to treatment he/she does not want, or forced death that he/she did not ask for. The Oath For most medical practitioners, it always comes down to the Hippocratic Oath. It demands action that would benefit the patients, effective shaking off unethical practices. The Oath goes on with: "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary (a device worn in the vagina) to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my art. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work." Just like practices like journalism, the medical practice also formed a code of ethics to ensure that their colleagues and they would be bound to consider humanistic elements not mentioned in the Hippocratic Oath. In the document signed by doctors from all over the United States, it said that they were to treat their patients with "attention, steadiness, and humanity" and to be "vigilant for the welfare of the community." The code stresses compassion and respect for human dignity but at the same time respect for the law. Doctors are advised to act responsibly in instances where they are pressured or are in a pinch. Moreover, the code added that a physician shall respect the rights of patients and safeguard patient confidences within the constraints of the law. Many ethical dilemmas surround the medical practice which somehow coincides not only with morality but also with the law. A great example would probably be when a doctor is faced with the situation of having to withhold or stop treatment for a patient. Abortion provides conflict between human jurisdiction over one's body and who gets to protect a life within another life. Experiments and risks are also some more examples of the medical practice's loopholes. Many decisions made in the practice of medicine are based on ethics. It gives proper means by which one should approach a medical dilemma. More importantly, medical practitioners should always go back to the patient's condition and the patient's wish. Although most situations where the patient gets to decide his/her fate and sometimes even the fate of another end up miserably, the patient still has a say in the matter. Human beings were given life to live but we were also given free will to decide for ourselves. Works Cited "Euthanasia." 2003. The Columbia Encyclopedia Sixth Edition. 1 August 2008. Hitt, J. "Pro-Life Nation." 9 April 2006. The New York Times. 1 August 2008. < http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine/09abortion.html_r=1&oref=slogin> Moreland, J.P. "The Euthanasia Debate: Understanding The Issues." Christian Research Institute-Statement DE197-1. 1 August 2008. "The 'Right to Die' vs. the 'Right to Live'." Ankenberg Theological Research Institute. 1 August 2008. "The right to live gives us a right to die." 7 April 2005. News-Medical.Net. 1 August 2008. "Traditional Principles of Medical Ethics." 1 August 2008. . "The Right to Live--or Die." 27 October 1975. TIME Magazine. 1 August 2008. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,913579,00.html Read More