Euthanasia in Terminal Illness - Essay Example

Euthanasia in Terminal Illness Euthanasia is one of the main concerns in the medical practice. It is defined as the ‘act of killing a severely ill person as an act of mercy’ which has 2 forms on the basis actions undertaken namely the negative and positive euthanasia. Negative euthanasia, also referred to as passive euthanasia, is the deprivation of treatment that can result to death, e.g. removal of life support for a terminally ill patient. Positive euthanasia, also referred to as active euthanasia, is the killing of severely ill person who has a chance to live but in conditions that need constant medical support such as in a coma, in constant pain, etc. (Andersen and Taylor, 2007, p.552). The objective of the paper is to explore the historical and philosophical roots related to euthanasia. Included in the topics to be covered are the different approaches that present the reasons for undertaking or employing euthanasia. Historical Roots of Euthanasia The history of euthanasia can be traced back to the reign of the Greeks and Romans when the term originated. Though it is meant to imply a good death, euthanasia is often deemed with negativity since it can be translated as physician-assisted suicide and compared to other ethical and moral social issues such as abortion, capital punishment, and issues related to beginning or ending of human life (McDougall, Gorman and Roberts, 2008, p.2). During the first to firth century, Greeks and Romans are allowed to access poison and choose death. The rise of the influence of Christianity during the Roman Empire had a great impact on the view on euthanasia. Death regardless of what reason was prohibited. During the middle ages, 5th to 15th century, the Catholic Church stressed the religious condemnation of euthanasia and that suffering is a sign of spiritual virtues of martyrdom. Then the Renaissance (14th to 17th century) came and changed the view on euthanasia through the discovery of modern scientific knowledge that are still influential in the present era. Thus, there is diversification of view on euthanasia since the church is still against the issue (McDougall, Gorman and Roberts, 2008, p.3-4). The view on euthanasia continuously changed as the Age of Reason came in during the 18th century. Scientific prowess opened the mind of the people regarding the need of every person to have a choice regarding death. In 1798, six colonies ceased the legal penalties for attempted suicide. The open mindedness of the authorities though made a frightening turn during the pre-WW II and Nazi Germany (1920-45) when the secretly approved government program that killed handicapped, mentally ill and people un asylums became the onset of Hitler’s Euthanasia Programme that even included people of least capability to defend themselves regardless of being healthy such as women and children (p.5). With the foundations of views and beliefs from the previous eras, the perspective toward euthanasia in the present era became divided. This is the main reason why it became a personal issue to decide on whether or not euthanasia should be applied. Law and medical ethics mandate the guidelines for euthanasia while the person himself and the relatives hold the decision to apply it. Philosophical Roots of Euthanasia Euthanasia is one of the main concerns in the field of medicine based on the fact that it is a controversial issue in ethics. The ethical question lies in the death of a person. If the person himself/herself consented for the act, there is a question the person’s right to take his/her own life. If the act is the decision of the relatives or the medical professionals since it may be the only solution left for the patient, there is a question on their right to decide the time when a person should die (Andersen and Taylor, 2007, p.552). The main answer to the questions regarding the need for euthanasia can be explained by Beauchamp and Childress’ four principles of medical ethics namely: respect for autonomy; beneficence; non maleficence; and justice. The first principle states the right of a person to make decisions regarding his/her own life. There are two ways on how the said principle can answer the ethical question related to euthanasia. One is that the person is in great pain and needed to have reprieve on the condition. Another is that the decision had been made by the person himself/herself. It is important to take note of the premise that euthanasia is the last resort in a given situation (The UK Ethics Network, 2001). The second principle states that the actions undertaken by health care and medical professionals should always benefit the patient. In euthanasia, the benefit is related to the fact that pain or suffering of the patient can be ended. If there are other ways to treat the condition and ease the pain of the patient, then euthanasia cannot be considered. The third principle is referred to as non malefierence to avoidance of harming the patient. Compared to the first two principles, it can contradict euthanasia in certain premise. Killing a person regardless of the benefits is simply wrong. The fourth principle is justice which considers the benefits, risks and costs of a particular action of decision. This explores the parity in terms of dealing with terminal cases (The UK Ethics Network, 2001). Euthanasia falls under the biomedical applied ethics which offers additional principles in the manner of determining the morality of the situation. Aside from the personal benefit, the social benefit of an issue is also given attention. In the case of euthanasia, although the benefit of the issue cannot be considered of utmost importance, financial aspect of giving end of life medical support can be lifted from the shoulders of the relatives and other family members when the act is performed for cases wherein recovery is already impossible. Another principle is that of benevolence which means that one must help those in need. In medical ethics, the patient’s need is of primary importance, thus, the dilemma lies in the need for the patient to be saved or to be considered for euthanasia (Fieser, 2009). Additional governing principles of biomedical ethics that can be applied to cases of euthanasia include principle of paternalism, harm, honesty, and lawfulness. In making medical decisions one must put the patient’s best interest at hand specifically when they already lack the capacity to do so themselves. In addition, harm, deception and possible violation of the governing law should be prevented (Fieser, 2009). Basically, the main reason for employing euthanasia is to end the suffering or pain being experienced by the patient. In such case, it can be viewed as putting the best interest of the patient at hand. But due to the moral laws being imposed in the society it is greatly important to justify such a decision specifically since the decision for employing the act of euthanasia is not a clear cut and simple one but a morally and ethically charged matter. The principles explored in the paper present the guidelines in dealing with the issue of euthanasia. Conclusion Based on the data gathered, euthanasia can be a morally wrong or right decision depending on the consideration of what is best for the patient. On a personal note, the decision of euthanasia should be a consensus between the medical professionals, the patient himself/herself if still capable, and the relatives. The medical professionals represent the perspective of what is best for the patient’s condition, the patient represents the internal perspective of the difficulty of the condition, and the relatives represent the effects of the situation on the basis of different aspects. In conclusion, euthanasia cannot be judged as a positive or a negative intervention to terminal illness. But it can be considered as a necessary choice that should be made available as a last resort in cases where no other treatment is possible. Summary of Points Euthanasia – mercy killing; medically assisted death 1. Historical Roots 1st to 5th century: Greeks and Romans – allowed to access poison and commit suicide Rise of Christianity – death regardless of what reason is prohibited 5th to 15th century: Catholic church teaches religious condemnation if euthanasia is committed 14th to 17th century: Renaissance: discovery of modern scientific knowledge; openness to euthanasia 18th century: Age of Reason – view on the importance of giving the people the choice in the issue of death 1920s-45: pre-WW II and Nazi Germany – Euthanasia Programme 1945 – present: modern era – euthanasia became personal choice 2. Philosophical Roots Principle of autonomy Principle of beneficence Principle of non maleficence Principle of justice Principle of social Principle of benevolence Principle of paternalism Principle of harm Principle of honesty Principle of lawfulness References Andersen, M. L. and Taylor, H. F. (2007). Sociology: Understanding A Diverse Society. Cengage Learning. The UK Ethics Network (2001). The Four Principles Approach. Principles Biomedical Ethics. 5th ed. Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care and University of Oxford. Fieser, J. (2009, May 10). Ethics. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/ McDougall, J.F., Gorman, M. and Roberts, C.S. (2008). Euthanasia: a reference handbook. ABC-CLIO. Read More