Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide - Essay Example

The doctor would, by withholding food, be killing the patient. This thesis sounds quite familiar because recently there have been a lot of debates about the ethical aspects of medical practice of euthanasia that pertains to the dilemma of whether to maintain lives of patients doomed to exist in an unconscious state or patients suffering from fatal illnesses. The case of the young man who has been in coma for 12 years is directly related to this ethical dilemma, and therefore is controversial almost by its definition.

More specifically, the controversy that surrounds euthanasia is fueled by the following elements that may be thought of as those comprising this medical action - the element of murder which is apparently what euthanasia is from a certain point of view, the element of a passive stance towards a patient which leads to letting die a person and is perhaps a softer definition of euthanasia than outright murder accusations, and the element of harm which is in any case induced on a person during euthanasia to let her or him die and which goes contrary to the medical oath.

In our case of the young man in coma the proposed intentional starving of his organism to stop his unconscious existence is one of possible methods of euthanasia.So, why is it that doctors decision to withhold food from the patient would essentially be considered as killing of the patient I think that the main premise on which this thesis is based is the inviolability of human right for life. Indeed, this principle forms the basis of many modern societies, including ours, and it is difficult to find reasons why the case of the young patient should violate this principle.

The main argument that underlies the proposed decision of the parents to remove the feeding apparatus, which presupposes that their son is most probably destined to remain unconscious, is misdirected. First of all, we really do not know enough about the workings of the human brain to be able to definitely say whether a person in the deepest coma is indeed completely unaware of anything. But even if we knew that this was the case, how can we conclude that this fact somehow allows us to kill this person We cannot justify such an act at least because of the following considerations - firstly, there is always a chance, even though sometimes it may be extremely small, that somehow a condition of a patient may improve; secondly, if a person is unconscious during a deep sleep, should it mean that we are equally allowed to consider him or her to be no longer a human being with the right to live Obviously, it is impossible to completely disprove the mentioned arguments, so it is reasonable that patients such as the young man in coma should be kept alive for as long as possible.

Now, with the above mentioned considerations in mind we have to conclude that any actual action of a doctor which as he knows in advance would immediately lead to the cessation of vital functions of the organism of the young man in light of the moral impermissibility of such an action should be clearly considered as killing the patient. The intentional initiation of starvation of the organism of a patient belongs to this group of actions, so it is equally an act of murder.In response to this line of reasoning one may respond that most probably if the young man in coma had been somehow informed about his sad situation he might voluntary decide to allow to be killed, at least in order to relieve the burden of hopeless care from his parents.

Indeed, when people consciously require euthanasia from doctors, the problem shifts from the discussion of the right to deprive people of life to the issue whether doctors should help patients to do what they are in any case determined to do. But, alas, the young man was not able to express his position on this issue, so any attempt to imagine what he would decide would formally speaking be an example of wishful thinking. Another possible argument is that the medical maintenance of the young man may be too costly for his parents.

However, while this argument is valid it is not relevant to our discussion because it presupposes that the act of removing the feeding apparatus means killing the young man. Instead, this line of reasoning only aims to justify this act.SourcesManning, Michael. Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Killing or Caring PaulistPress, 1998.