Ethical Problems of Euthanasia - Essay Example

Ethical problems of Euthanasia Euthanasia derives from a Greek word euthanatos that translates to mean “good or easy death”. Euthanasia refers to the practice by medical professionals to deliberately end or help in ending the life of a patient through withholding of treatment or use of lethal injections or medications. In medicine, euthanasia acts as an option that involves measures to relieve a patient from continuous pain by intentionally ending the life of a given patient. Euthanasia has been in use in circumstances where patients succumb to serious pain caused by terminal illnesses that are not likely to end. To relieve the individual patient from such terminal illness, the patient, family or a doctor may advocate for euthanasia. Some people have also advocated for euthanasia for fear of huge medical bills that may result due to overstay of patients in hospitals when it clear known that they may not heal. Euthanasia majorly contradicts and causes trouble for medical practitioners in their efforts to work within the codes of ethics prescribed for the profession. Euthanasia can be voluntary, involuntary, passive or active depending on the person making requests for its commitment. Voluntary euthanasia occurs when a patient who is competent and has sober brain makes an enduring request for termination of their lives. Involuntary euthanasia involves move or conspiracy to end the life of a patient without their consent. This may be due to family’s request made without consultation of the individual patient Active euthanasia involves end of a patient’s life through use of drugs either by oneself or through assistance of a medical doctor. Passive euthanasia on the other hand involves ending of person’s life by failing to take necessary life saving actions or withholding essential treatment procedures. Passive euthanasia may consist of acts like withdrawing food, water, drug and surgical or medical procedures. Assisted suicide is also another form of euthanasia committed when someone assists a patient to commit suicide. This may be through administration of overdose of prescribed drug by a physician or provision of sedatives by relatives to a patient or failing to prevent a patient from attempting to end their life. Ethical problems relating to euthanasia touches on the frameworks for practice of passive euthanasia. As mentioned earlier, passive euthanasia involves act of ending a patient’s life by withholding necessary treatment procedures and efforts that can better the life of the given patient. When implemented by a medical doctor or a physician, passive euthanasia is tantamount to immoral healthcare practice. This is due to the potential to breach ethical code of conduct established to guide physician practices. According the codes of conduct, physician or any healthcare practitioner bears the responsibility to act in a manner or manners that best suits the interest of patients, which is positive recovery from ailment. In that line, withholding proper practices with intention to make someone die while under serious pain is tantamount to gross misconduct in the medical profession. Medical practitioners involved in such a practice are subtle to criminal investigation and worthy of facing trial in courts for engaging in criminal and unprofessional act. Practicing passive euthanasia also breaches physician’s code of ethics that requires healthcare practitioners to prioritize the well-being and health of their patients. Passive euthanasia encourages indirect murder, which do not inform adherence to the code of conduct that encourages medical practitioners to promote health rather than end life. Irrespective of the health condition of a patient, no code of conduct in medical field supports or proposes end of life as a better healthcare practice. Another code of ethics in medical profession requires that healthcare practitioners act in the best way to minimize ravages of a disease on a patient and safeguard health of the particular patient (AMA). Under no circumstance can passive euthanasia appear to promote the code of conduct. This is because, instead of leveraging pain and suffrage, passive euthanasia seeks to alleviate pain by terminating life. Active euthanasia assisted by medical practitioner also fails to meet the provision of the code since it does not translate to safeguard of patient’s health or minimization of disease ravages on patients. Another code of ethics for medical practitioners requires that healthcare providers practice the art and science of medicine to the best of their abilities informed by moral independence and full technical knowledge with compassion and respect for dignity of patients (AMA). In medical profession, best practices are limited to acts that promote best health conditions of patients and not killing or encouraging death. This code of ethics paints euthanasia with several ethical immoralities. To begin with, engagement in passive euthanasia by any medical practitioner cannot appear as a compassion or best health procedure. In fact, healthcare providers involved in committing passive euthanasia best appear as avoiding their moral responsibilities of promoting best health that is within their individual professional capabilities. Involuntary euthanasia especially when requested by patient’s family contradicts the principles of the code of conduct. This relates to the fact that some families tend to compel and even threaten doctors to comply with their request for involuntary euthanasia, which entirely compromises the moral independence of medical practitioners. Moreover, medical practitioners engaging in active euthanasia can only appear as working against their moral independence especially when moved by emotion. To show respect to patients, healthcare practitioners need to engage in conducts that are above reproach, and resistant to emotional, physical and financial advantage over any patient. Some patients and their relatives have requested for active, voluntary and involuntary euthanasia for fear of huge medical bills when patient continue to survive under serious illnesses. Insurance companies providing medical covers for terminally and serious ill patients have at sometimes tried to influence medical practitioners to perform euthanasia on particular patients. The main reason for such requests have attributed to the need to avoid accumulation of medical bills than is beneficial to the providers of medical cover. When healthcare practitioners submit to such requests, they can only be taking financial advantage over the health of an individual patient. Some forms of euthanasia tend to breach the rights of individual patients as recommended by the codes of conduct in medical profession. To begin with, healthcare providers have the mandate to respect rights of patients to understand nature of their illnesses, causes and available treatment options. Under this provision, passive euthanasia involving healthcare practitioners withhold appropriate treatment procedures breaches the right of the individual patients. This is because practitioners committing passive euthanasia may find it difficult to inform patients of the intention or convince patients that their act is one of the best options while they are virtually doing nothing. Another aspect of patient’s rights requires that healthcare practitioners recommend diagnostic and therapeutic procedures capable of improving patient’s well-being and share such resolution with patients to make informed decisions. Active, passive, voluntary or involuntary euthanasia performed by any medical practitioner cannot seem as noble diagnostic or therapeutic procedures capable of improving health conditions of patients. Another aspect of code of conducts in medical field requires that doctors use all available resources in manner that intends to promote positive health condition of patients. The act of withdrawing life-supporting elements like water, food, drug and machines to make a patient suffer to death contradicts best healthcare practices. Legalization of euthanasia including clear definition of circumstances, time and procedures of practice can work to overcome ethical challenges that relates to codes of conduct of medical practitioners. Some countries and states have laws governing euthanasia and which alleviate unethical aspect of the practice. For instance, the Death with Dignity Act as working in Oregon State allows patients opportunity to request medical practitioners to help them in ending their lives. The act requires medical practitioners to comply with request of individual patients to undertake voluntary or active euthanasia. Under the act, terminally ill Oregonians reserve the right to voluntary euthanasia through self-administration of killer medication prescribed by a medical practitioner. Under such legal provisions, move by doctors to involve in euthanasia does not seem to breach any of the codes of conduct binding medical practitioners. Euthanasia requested by individual patients in line to practicing their right to death is ethical. There should be no problem when patients suffering from terminal illnesses like cancer ask for voluntary euthanasia. Patients can make such requests due to understanding that treatment methods like chemotherapy for cancer have side effects that can only complicate their individual health. Such patients demonstrate significant knowledge of their conditions and understand consequences of their actions, and can be taken to have made rational decisions that deserve respect. Some patients also make advance decisions about the fate of their life through written instructions on how to be handled under particular health conditions. In case where a patient cites euthanasia as best way out of certain health conditions, there is no ethical problem to perform euthanasia. This could to be due to patients disregarding some forms of critical care due to cost and incapable of ending suffrage. No law should be set to impede or frighten the doctors from executing their professional roles by participating in requested euthanasia. I also have to refute the opponents of the passive euthanasia by saying that it is comprises the rights of the family members of the sick to call for euthanasia. This is validated by considering the fact it is the family members who suffers the burden of paying for medical bills of the patient. In conclusion, euthanasia emanates from a Greek work euthanatos that translates to mean “good death.” Euthanasia simply involves acts of ending patients’ life when perceived to suffer heavily from terminal illnesses that are incurable. Euthanasia has attracted numerous controversies from legal, medical, socialists and religious actors. The basis of the controversies revolves around ethical nature of the practice with regard to various aspects of human life. Some of the ethical problems of euthanasia relate to breach of codes of conduct in medical profession. This manifests when doctors or healthcare practitioners involve in any form of euthanasia. Other ethical problems with euthanasia relate to religious standing and believe of certain communities regarding life. To avoid contradicting situations faced by medical doctors when weighing between adhering to codes of conduct and practicing euthanasia, countries should establish laws that clarify circumstances, time and procedures to guide practicing of euthanasia. Works cited AMA. Principles of Medical Ethics. 2001. . Read More