Understanding the Nature and Consequences of Euthanasia - Coursework Example

Understanding the nature and consequences of euthanasia a. Introduction Euthanasia has been a of much arguments and debates for a long time. The issue on whether or not human beings have the right to decide when and how they want to die poses several ethical and moral questions. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the word euthanasia comes from the Greek word “eu” which means good and “thanatos” which means death. Taken in our modern context, euthanasia, also called mercy killing is the “act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons or animals that are suffering from painful and incurable diseases or incapacitating disorder.”1 Although there are so many people who vehemently oppose euthanasia, a recent Gallup poll showed that around 60% of the people living in the United States are in favor of mercy killing (Carroll J., 2006). The figures shown in the survey may not be conclusive but it gives an idea of what people are thinking on matters involving life and death in the United States. The survey gives us a glimpse of how our society views the morality of taking the lives of people in the guise of mercy. The question of whether or not it is righteous to kill a person because one is compelled by compassion is indeed something that we must ponder upon at great length. To help us understand better what is euthanasia, let us first look into the different circumstances involved in this act. Euthanasia can be classified as active and passive. According to Strayer (2006), active euthanasia is “intentional” killing and is often performed by a physician upon the request of the patient or his/her family. On the other hand, Strayer (2006) defined passive euthanasia as a state where the doctor “allows the patient to die” by withholding some form of treatment or life support from the patient. In most parts of the world, euthanasia is considered illegal and punishable under the law. However, in countries like Belgium, The Netherlands and Switzerland, mercy killing is considered legal. In the United States, only the State of Oregon allows euthanasia under the Death with Dignity Act while the State of Texas allows the withdrawal of life support on terminally ill patients under the Texas Futile Care Law. b. Active euthanasia Active euthanasia can be categorized into three. The first category is the voluntary euthanasia where the attending physician follows the wishes of the patient. With the consent of the patient, the attending physician administers toxic or deadly substances with the purpose of “painlessly” killing a terminally ill patient. In most cases, euthanasia is accomplished by giving the toxic substances either orally or through intravenous administration. According to the Dutch protocol on euthanasia, intravenous administration of the lethal drugs is preferred as it is “the most reliable and rapid way to accomplish euthanasia.”  (See Royal Dutch Society for the Advancement of Pharmacy The Hague 1994). In the United States, only the State of Oregon has a law, which allows for active euthanasia. The Death with Dignity Act, which was passed during the Oregon Ballot Measure 16 in 1994, allows for mercy killing on patients who are terminally ill and could no longer lead a meaningful life. According to this Act, the patient has the right to request his or her doctor to give him or her lethal medication in order to end his or her life painlessly. Under this law, physicians can actively assist the patient in committing suicide by prescribing a lethal dose of medicine to the patient within six (6) months from the time that the patient is supposed to die of an incurable disease. Technically, the purpose of this law is to relieve the patient’s suffering by hastening his or her demise. Although the Death with Dignity Act in Oregon has been the subject of many controversies, the constitutionality of Act was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Gonzales v. Oregon (2006). In Holland where consensual euthanasia is very common, the wisdom of consented mercy killing has always been a controversial subject. The story told by Bernhoft (1995) about a 26-year-old ballerina who was suffering from arthritis on her feet is very disturbing to say the least. According to Bernhoft, the girl was depressed because she could no longer dance as she used to. As she believes that she could no longer have a normal life as a ballerina, she requested a doctor to give her a lethal dose of medicine and end her life. Based on such a flimsy reason that the ballerina has arthritis and she could no longer live the life that she used to have as a dancer, the doctor administered the lethal medicine. When asked why he gave the ballerina a lethal does of medicine, the doctor simply said, “One doesn’t enjoy such things, but it was her choice!” (Bernhoft 1995 also cited in Bohlin 1996 online available http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/euthanas.html). Given this circumstance, one could not help but feel scandalized at how the law on euthanasia has been molded to fit the convenience of some irresponsible people. The second category of euthanasia is non-voluntary euthanasia where the doctor intentionally kills the patient without the patient’s consent. According to Strayer (2006), non-voluntary active euthanasia happens when it is impossible to get the consent of the patient as when the patient is already unconscious and unable to give his or her consent. Many sectors strongly oppose non-voluntary euthanasia because it gives the physician the power to “play God by deciding who dies and who lives” (Bohlin 1999). The third category of euthanasia is the involuntary active euthanasia where the consent of the patient was not sought even when the patient is still conscious and could have made his or her own decision regarding his or her treatment process. Again, under this category, the physician decides for the patient. The second and third categories of the active euthanasia have brought about strong reactions form the public especially in countries where euthanasia is legal. A lot of people do not feel that they are safe with their physicians. In Holland, there are many people who carry cards with them saying that they should not be subjected to euthanasia without their consent (Finigsin R. 1991). There is always that fear that the doctor would decide that the family have suffered enough and it is time to end everyone else’s misery (Finigsin R. 1991). Furthermore, there is always that fear that the doctor would be tempted to commit murder under the guise of euthanasia simply because the doctor is angry or simply tired of taking care of the patient (van der Maas 1991). c. Passive Euthanasia Like active euthanasia, passive euthanasia is also divided into three categories. The first category of passive euthanasia according to Stayer (2006) is the voluntary passive euthanasia. In voluntary passive euthanasia, the doctor withholds treatment or life support at the request of the patient or his/her family. One of the most famous cases of passive voluntary euthanasia is the case of Maria Theresa “Terri” Schiavo where her husband petitioned the Court that she be allowed to die by removing the life support attached to her. Schiavo who suffered from persistent vegetative state (PVS) after a heart attack has been on life support for 15 years before the doctors finally removed her life support (Arthur Caplan, James J. McCartney, Dominic Sisti, editors (2006)). Although there are many people who questions the right of the doctors and the husband of Schiavo to decide whether she be allowed to die or not, there are also many sectors that lauded the Court’s decision to allow Schiavo to die. At the end of the day, the legacy of Schiavo is that she opened the eyes of people on the true meaning of compassion and how it is better to let death take its natural course (David Gibbs and Bob DeMoss (2006). The second category of passive euthanasia is the non-voluntary euthanasia where the doctor removes life support from the patient without the consent of the patient. Under the Texas Futile Care Law, the doctors are given the right to withdraw treatment or life support on patients that are already terminally ill. Although cases of withdrawal of life support is still very rare in Texas, the case of the six month old infant Sun Hudson is proof that under the Futile Care law, the doctors can exercise their right to withhold treatment even when the parents of the patient objects to such act2. The third category of passive euthanasia is the involuntary passive euthanasia where the doctors would allow the disease to kill the patient without the consent of the patient. Under this category, the patient may be conscious and able to decide on his or her fate but his or her consent was never sought. This category brings to mind the case of Tirhas Habtigiris who died in December of 2005. Habtigiris was suffering from terminal cancer and before Habtigiris went into shock and become unresponsive, she execute a written statement that if ever she becomes unconscious or unresponsive, her two cousins shall decide what to do with her. Unfortunately, her doctors decided to withhold treatment without her consent and against the wishes of her family. The doctors decided that she was too ill and there is nothing that could be done to save her. Since the doctors considered Habtigiris to be “too far gone”, the ethic committee of the hospital allowed her life support removed, allowing her to die3. Was the decision of the doctors justified? Under the Texas Futile Care Law, withholding life support is legal as long as the patient is terminally ill and the disease is incurable. d. Conclusion Euthanasia is an issue that is laden with too many ethical and moral issues. Sometimes, the boundaries between life and death could be so blurred that it takes a lot of moral maturity to be able to decide which is more appropriate, a life of misery or instant death. One should never view mercy killing as something that could be taken for granted or taken lightly. Although there may be times when a patient is in such pain and misery that it would be kinder to simply take his or her life, such decision to allow a person to die in the guise of mercy should never be taken lightly or whimsically. Note that under the Hippocratic oath that physicians and other medical professionals take, it is clearly stated that a medical professional should not withhold treatment from their patient even when the patient request for such. The role of the physician should be to save lives and not end it. It is not for the physician to decide who lives and who dies. There is a big difference between actively seeking death and simply letting death take its natural course. Where one actively seeks death in the hands of the physician even when his or her time has not yet come, euthanasia becomes a simple act of physician-assisted suicide. On the other hand, where the physician willfully ends the life of the patient without consulting the patient or his/her family, the act the physician of taking the life of the patient becomes nothing but an act short of murder. It is therefore imperative that before an act of euthanasia is performed, the questions of ethics and morality should be satisfied. References: 1. Arthur Caplan, James J. McCartney, Dominic Sisti, editors (2006)The Case of Terri Schiavo: Ethics at the End of Life. 2. Bernhoft R. (1995) Quoted in Euthanasia: False Light. Produces by IAETF, P.O. Box 760, Stebenville cited in Bohlin R. (1996) Euthanasia the Battle for life: Physician Assisted Suicide http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/euthanas.html 3. Bohlin R (1996) Euthanasia the Battle for life: Physician Assisted Suicide http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/euthanas.html 4. Carroll, Joseph (2006, June 19). Public Continues to Support Right-to-Die for Terminally Ill Patients. Retrieved January 16, 2007, from The Gallup Poll Web site: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=23356&pg=1 5. Carroll, Joseph (2006, June 19). Public Continues to Support Right-to-Die for Terminally Ill Patients. Retrieved January 16, 2007, from The Gallup Poll Web site: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=23356&pg=1 6. David Gibbs and Bob DeMoss (2006)Fighting for Dear Life: Inside the Terri Schiavo Story and What it Means for All of Us 7. Finigsen R. (1991) “The Report of the Dutch Committee on Euthanasia” issues in Law and Medicine 7:339-44. 8. Hippocrates, trans. Jones WHS. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1923. 9. Jeff Strayer (2006) Euthanasia http://www.ipfw.edu/phil/faculty/Strayer/Euthanasia.pdf 10. Jonsen AR, Siegler M, Winslade WJ. Clinical Ethics: A Practical Approach to Ethical Decisions in Clinical Medicine. 4th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Health Professions Division; 1998. 11. Oregon Death with Dignity Act, 1995 12. Royal Dutch Society for the Advancement of Pharmacy The Hague 1994 Administration and compounding of euthanasia agents http://www.wweek.com/html/euthanasics.html 13. Texas Futile Care law 14. Tirhas Habtigiris case: Medical History http://www.baylorhealth.com/articles/habtegiris/history.htm 15. Van der Maas P.J. (1991) Euthanasia and Other Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life” Lancet 338: 699-74 16. Walker R. (1999) Ethical issues in end of life care. Cancer Control Journal March/April 1999 online available at http://www.moffitt.org/moffittapps/ccj/v6n2/article4.htm Read More