Legalizing Euthanasia - Article Example

?Legalizing Euthanasia 26th Feb, Euthanasia has been defined as the act of deliberately killing patients with an aim of reducing their suffering and pain. This paper looks at the various supporting arguments for euthanasia and the counteracting arguments to oppose the practice. From the discussion euthanasia has been regarded as that which promotes dignified deaths for patients and that protects patients from unnecessary suffering and pain. The practice has been found to be one that though inexpensive, it gives so much power to healthcare givers, fails to respect the sacredness of life, and patients’ right to live, reduces the effectiveness of palliative care, increases the number of involuntary and non voluntary euthanasia and demoralises healthcare givers from providing quality end of life care to terminally ill patients. The arguments against this practice are definitely more and stronger than those in support of the practice. This paper has strongly put the stand that euthanasia should not be legalized and that palliative care is the most efficient and ethically appropriate way of reducing suffering and pain in terminally sick patients. Legalizing Euthanasia Introduction Euthanasia, also called mercy killing, is defined as the act of intentionally taking away the life of another human being with an aim of reducing the pain and suffering of that person (Larson, 2004). The practice of euthanasia is one that has escalated a lot of debates not just in America, but in other parts of the world as well with different groups and persons arguing for and against the practice. As the debates increases, some of the regions and states such as Oregon have gone ahead to legalize the practice of euthanasia with some others strongly opposing its legalization. This paper provides my views on the legalization of euthanasia, an act which I strongly oppose. Argument The word euthanasia is a Greek word for the phrase ‘good death’. With this, the practice has always been viewed by some as that which ends the suffering and pain of a patient and that which brings him relief as a result (Larson, 2004).However, this is not necessarily the case. The practice has been attributed to a number of benefits. I believe these benefits, however, cannot in any way be used to justify its legalization putting into consideration that some of them are still questionable. One of the key reasons that supporters of euthanasia give for supporting the act is that the practice allows the patient to die a dignified death. According to these supporters, giving a dignified death to the patient is better than leaving them to suffer in pain for an unknown period of time. This argument is, however, not sufficient to support the legalization of euthanasia. Palliative care serves the role of ensuring that patients are able to comfortably and peacefully live during the last days of their lives. In this case, palliative care can be said to be an effective way through which pain and suffering can be reduced to the lowest possible levels. The provision of good end of life care according to Foley & Hendin, (2002) is a better choice over euthanasia. Almost every form of pain can be decreased through medication and other forms of care, hence, mercy killing should not an only means to reducing pain in patients. This view is further supported by the American Medical Association (AMA) which strongly stands in opposition to mercy killing. According to this body, it is evident that there is need for all patients to receive quality end of life care but not to have them undergo euthanasia. According to the AMA, nurses and other healthcare givers play the significant role of treating and keeping people alive. Going against that commitment to save life by taking away life questions their integrity and breaks patient- doctor trust. AMA strongly believes that giving alternative care and treatment during the last years of a patient’s life will be a good way of reducing the need for euthanasia, a reason why they introduced the Institute for Ethics, an institution that works towards educating 10 percent of its medical specialists on hospitalization and end of life care (Life Issues Institute, 1997). The autonomy argument is another major reason given in support of euthanasia, Here, some healthcare givers are of the opinion that patients have a right to decide on when their lives should end. Euthanasia is in this case given to patients who wish to have it done on them. The practice of the act under such a circumstance is seen as that which is in line with the code of ethics to respect patients’ autonomy. I highly disagree with this view and believe that there is no such thing as the right to have your life put to an end. Additionally, allowing voluntary euthanasia (when the mercy killing is done in respect to the will of the patient) is a likely means of allowing involuntary and non voluntary euthanasia as doctors may make it their role to determine on who should live or who should have their life ended based maybe on the condition of the patient. Involuntary euthanasia is when a patient is killed without having raised the will or approval to have that done. Non voluntary euthanasia on the other hand is when the mercy killing is done in contrast to the wishes of the patient. Euthanasia is in this case done even after the patient has requested not to have it performed on him or her. A good example of how voluntary euthanasia can create a means to have all other types of euthanasia performed is with the case of Netherlands. This is one country where euthanasia has been legalized. The country allows for euthanasia to be done during times when the suffering and pain experienced by a patient is too much to bear. According to a 1990 report called the Remmelink Report, nearly 1000 involuntary euthanasia had been done within that year. A great number of the killed patients were those suffering from terminal illnesses. A major excuse given by the head medical personnel in reaction to these findings is that most of these patients were not conscious and were too sick to give their consent (Remmelink Committee, 1991). According to Keown (2002), the findings obtained I this report strongly indicate that the number of involuntary euthanasia cases could be a lot higher than the reported 1000 cases. The author is of the opinion that the number could be as high as over 5, 400 patients including patients who may have their palliative care withdrawn or disrupted. Supporters of voluntary euthanasia have gone ahead to include the killing of unconscious patients and those without the ability to give their views or consent on having their life taken away. According to this group of specialists, an unconscious person has no will or desire to live. According to them, taking away the life of a critically sick disabled child, even without consent, is ethically right as it saves the child the experience of painful end of life treatments that will only sustain his or her life for just a short while. Even in the case of voluntary euthanasia, there are a number of questions that can be raised. One such question is what if the patient did not really want to die per se? What if the patient is just depressed and feeling vulnerable? What if he is just confused and cannot make any relevant judgment. This cases are a possibility, hence, if mercy killing is done with consent given under such circumstances, then the practice cannot be said to be ethically fit (BBC, 2012). According to Chochinorv et al. (1999), patients suffering from terminal illnesses occasionally express their desire to die though very few of them really desire to die. The authors are also of the view that terminal ill patient’s desire to live reduces as the patient nears death mainly as a result of increased depression, lost sense of good health and anxiety. By providing quality palliative care, then a patient’s desire to die would be less. However in most cases, the provision of palliative care is quite demanding physically, psychologically as well as financially reason why some people and health care givers would prefer euthanasia which is easier and less costly (Foley & Hendin, 2002). The World Health Organization regards palliative care as that which gives patients an affirmation to life, brings out death as a process that is usual , that nether fastens nor stops death, that relives patients from suffering and pain and that puts into consideration a patient’s spiritual and psychological characteristics (BBC, 2012). The belief that euthanasia can be legalized and well controlled is totally not true. Though during its legalization the process has always be seen as that which will be directed by a set code of conduct from the government, this has not been the case at all. A good example is with the case of Netherlands discussed above and where doctors continue to perform even involuntary and non voluntary forms of euthanasia rather than just voluntary euthanasia. Most of the euthanasia cases conducted in this country also goes unreported, contrary to the set government policy related to the practice. Additionally, giving doctors or nurses the right to conduct euthanasia gives them the right to take away the life of any one they feel deserves to die. The governments of countries and states where the practice has been legalized have no efficient measures of monitoring whether the practice is being undertaken as per the set laws. This has led to an upsurge in the number of mercy killing cases and highly reduced the number of patients receiving palliative care in the hospices. Basically, euthanasia can never be approapriately and strictly regulated. Its legalization, instead, just gives excessive power to healthcare givers to control their patients’ lives. Overall, euthanasia is an unethical practice that fails to respect the sacredness of life and that goes against the set codes by the AMA and the American Nurses Association (ANA) (ANA, 2013). Legalizing the practice reduces the chances of having quality palliative care for terminally sick patients and lowers the healthcare givers’ devotion to protecting and saving lives. It reduces the nurses and doctor’s motivation to effectively care for those in their last days and to reduce their suffering and pain through palliative care. Conclusion Though a less expensive way of dealing with terminal illnesses, the negative and ethical aspects of euthanasia are evidently stronger than its benefits. The practice should in no way be legalized. Legalizing euthanasia challenges the nurses’ and doctors’ obligation towards promoting, preserving and protecting the lives of their patients. References American Nurses Association. (2013). Active Euthanasia. Kansas City, MO: ANA. BBC. (2012). Anti-euthanasia arguments. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml. Chochinov, H., Tataryn, D., Clinch, J. & Dudgeon, D. (1999). Will to live in the terminally ill. Lancet 354: 816-819. Foley, K. & Hendin, H. (2002).The Case against Assisted Suicide: For the Right to End-of- Life Care. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins. Keown, J. (2002). Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy. Cambridge: Cambride University Press. Larson, E. (2004). Euthanasia in America: Past, Present and Future, A Review of Merciful End and Forced Exit. New York: Oxford Univ. Press Life Issues Institute. (1997). AMA: Anti-Euthanasia, Pro-Pain Control. Retrieved from http://www.pregnantpause.org/euth/amagomez.htm. Remmelink Committee. (1991). The Remmelink Report. Netherlands: RC. Read More