Legal and Ethical Issues Concerning Euthanasia - Essay Example

? Legal and Ethical Issues Concerning Euthanasia Introduction According to the Oxford English Dictionary, Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing, is the act of inducing a gentle and easy death to patients suffering from terminal diseases that cause endless pain and are not manageable. Euthanasia is probably one of the most controversial issues in the world today due to the legal and ethical considerations that surround it; many people and groups have taken divisive stands concerning this matter and universal consensus regarding the execution of this policy is yet to be achieved. The ethical issues surrounding this debate are basic moral considerations, that sanctioning euthanasia is equal to a violation of the patients’ right to life, whereas the legal concerns entail the unprecedented challenge of legalizing euthanasia and formulating regulation that govern its execution. This paper presents a critical examination of both the ethical and moral issues related to the current healthcare setting, personal and professional values influencing own stand on euthanasia, and ways of promoting health by reducing the risk in legal and ethical situations. In addition to that, the paper will also utilize current research to plan nursing care through legal and ethical standards of care, and identify the global trends related to legal and ethical considerations in nursing, among other things. Legal and ethical issues related to current health care setting As observed before, the issue of euthanasia has attracted both criticism and praise in equal measure with different views emanating from various quarters of society; questions that have repeatedly been raised in this debate relate to the moral and ethical justification for euthanasia take people’s life. For instance, criticism for euthanasia has focused on whether it is justified and justifiable for doctors’ to end their patients’ lives deliberately, especially after having taken their Hippocratic Oath. Besides that, a much more unsettling question entails the pain and suffering of patients with terminal ailments that render their lives not worth living- should patients be allowed to suffer endlessly when their suffering can be eased through euthanasia? In this regard, the complexity of this matter is, in itself, a source of challenges that present a dilemma for both moralists and legal experts today; proponents and opponents of euthanasia have raised critical issues regarding its execution. On one side, proponents of the debate regarding euthanasia contend that patients with terminal illnesses should be granted the right to end their suffering through quick, dignified, and compassionate death (ProCon.org, 2013). According to this argument, this is much fair than to let such patients to suffer all the way to their graves, especially after it has already been established that they cannot be cured however long it takes. Conversely, opponents of this debate argue that doctors’ moral responsibility is to keep the patients alive and must do all practical interventions within their power to do so under the guidelines of the professional principles outlined in the Hippocratic Oath. This opposing argument goes further to state the catastrophic risk involved in sanctioning euthanasia as it may potentially lead to cases of murder (Zdenkowski, 1997); for instance, euthanasia may unfairly victimize the poor and disabled as it may become an incentive to insurance companies to end patients’ lives to save money. In the current health care setting, both partial and active euthanasia is not permitted because the nursing professionals are opposed to the practice due to both moral and legal considerations. There have been various attempts to change the laws to permit Nurses the legal framework under which they can administer euthanasia to patients with terminal illnesses but all attempts have been shot down. Personal and professional values Nurses are inevitably at the heart of the euthanasia debate and their contributions should not only be regarded as highly opinionated individual stands but empirically sound as professional opinions that need to weigh in on the final decision (Chaloner & Sanders, 2007). As a practicing professional, there are a number of personal and professional values that inform a own stand on the euthanasia debate; firstly, personal values are from a Christian perspective, and are to do with the Christian values of morality as espoused in the Bible. There is no moral religious justification to taking one’s life and as such, any form of euthanasia is a sin both before God and man; the breathe of life is the most natural and precious gift from God to man, according to the Bible, and only God has the right to take life because he gives. The Hippocratic Oath that obliges all nursing professionals to promote the life of their patients whether terminally ill or not informs own stand regarding the euthanasia debate; professional values expressed in the Hippocratic oath include the principle of non-maleficence, beneficence and autonomy (Silver and Ludwic, 1999). The principle of non-malevolence stipulates that professionals should not harm their patients, while the principle of beneficence stipulates that professionals must always seek to do good for their patients. On the other hand, the principle of autonomy has to do with the autonomy of the patient in making decisions regarding their health in terminal cases that yield ethical and legal dilemmas for the professionals. In view of all the above personal and professional values, both active and passive euthanasia is not an appropriate measure for patients because sanctioning euthanasia would inevitably undermine the Doctors’ Hippocratic Oath thus weakening the trust relationship between professionals and their patients. The impact of this issue on your patient The proposal to sanction euthanasia is a potential threat to the cordial trust relationship between professionals and their patients because it undermines the patients’ right to life (Ishimaru, n.d.), whereas granting them the right to death in cases of terminal illnesses. In addition to that, sanctioning euthanasia may put pressure on vulnerable patients to feel that due to its legalization, they are morally obliged to exercise the legal right to euthanasia in cases of terminal illnesses (Chaloner & Sanders, 2007). Alternatively, it is up to the society to determine through its democratic processes on the most effective way of catering for the divisive wishes of the citizens, rather than leaving the matter to the discretion of the professionals and policy makers. A collaborative approach to the decision making process that brings together all the different parties involved in this debate is essential if consensus is to be reached and a conclusion drawn with regards to how terminally ill patients can be helped without undermining their right to life. Ways to promote health and reduce risk in legal and ethical situations Amid the debate surrounding the issue of euthanasia, there have been various suggestions to promote health while reducing risk in legal and ethical situations; these suggestions have greatly focused on the need to incorporate all the parties involved in terminal illness scenarios. For instance, the most practical way of promoting health is to ensure excellent medical care to patients in all the stages of their illness, to avert the intense pain and suffering that patients go through in the final stages of terminal illnesses (CTV Montreal, 2013). Furthermore, a much more proactive resolve would be to consider the amendment of laws barring euthanasia to allow medics a certain degree of right to grant euthanasia for the sole purpose of ending suffering of terminally ill patients (Ebrahimi, 2012). Legal permission would permit doctors and medical practitioners to grant their patients wishes through aided death while under the protection of the law, and patients will be legally justified to want to end their suffering as well. As it stands now, neither the terminally ill patients nor the doctors and nursing practitioners are can seek euthanasia without undermining ethical and legal considerations that have led to the vicious debate concerning euthanasia. However, any form of regulation sanctioning euthanasia must be tight-proof to avert the risk of undermining patients’ lives through euthanasia; for instance, the laws must provide a legal framework that states clearly under what circumstances do patients qualify as need-to-die candidates, and how they can be helped to do so. In this regard, nurses and medical practitioner will still be able to promote health by ensuring requests for euthanasia are not only voluntary but also well-thought through, and repeated by the terminally ill patients. Such legislation must also limit euthanasia to the medical field and only in the cases of terminal illnesses where patients after thorough deliberations request for it to be administered to them. Revision of legislation to allow euthanasia in limited terminal illness cases will be successful to reduce risk in both ethical and legal situations and to protect medical practitioners (Tiedemann and Valiquet, 2008). Nursing care using ethical, legal principles and standards of care Nursing care should be guided by ethical and legal principles that seek to promote health of the patients and to reduce risk of life and litigation accordingly; firstly, the nurses’ decisions must be made in the best interests of the patients (Allmark and Tod, 2009). Even patients who cannot make decisions for themselves are subjected to decisions made by nurses on their behalf following the principle of best interest as provided for in the Mental Capacity Act of 2005. Nurses make these decisions based on non-maleficence and beneficence principles (Lewenson and Truglio-Londrigan, 2008); nurses are obliged, in their daily practice, to make decisions that promote the patients’ health and to lead to their wellbeing rather than hurting the patients. Consent is imperative in the event of making life or death decisions on patients; nurses must ensure they achieve the consent of patients in all practical situations. The Mental Capacity Act stipulates clearly that all adults are capable of making decisions, unless there are grounds for reasonable doubt, which must be respected by nurses even if they are unwise decisions. Nurses have a duty of care to patients and they must do everything in their power to promote the life of their patients by providing utmost palliative care for their patients. Trends and issues related to legal and ethical issues in nursing New trends and issues related to legal and ethical issues in nursing include the idea that when a patient is dying, it is the nurses’ obligation to intervene in the best interest of the patient, and such interventions may constitute palliation of symptoms such as pain and removal of treatments that have become burdensome to the patient. These interventions, contrary to passive or active euthanasia that seeks to hasten the death of a person, are meant not to ensure that the patient dies, but to ensure he dying patient dies well. Similarly, decisions on whether to withhold or withdraw certain treatments are guided by the best interest and consent principles; however, such decisions are subject to change depending on the patients’ progress and change of mind and doctors are legally justified to invoke such changes. Finally, another trend and issue in nursing entails the intend to kill aspect; a nurse will not have intended a patient’s death if the standard principles in the end of life pathway are followed keenly, even if the nurse entertained any hope of ending the patient’s suffering. References Allmark, P. & Tod, A. (2009). End of life care pathways: Ethical and legal principles. Nursing Standard. Vol. 24, 14, 35-39. CTV Montreal. (2013). Doctor, patient advocate better end-of-life care, not euthanasia. CTV News. Retrieved from http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/doctor-patient-advocate-better-end-of-life-care-not-euthanasia-1.1313310#ixzz2VbxI5GGC Chaloner, C., & Sanders, K. (2007). Euthanasia: The legal issues. Nursing Standard. Vol.21, 36, 4246. Ebrahimi, N. (2012). The ethics of euthanasia. Australian Medical Student Journal. Volume 3, Issue 1. Ishimaru, Y. (n.d). Legalization of Euthanasia. Retrieved from http://wenku.baidu.com/view/ff271fbbc77da26925c5b0e1.html Lewenson, S. B. & Truglio-Londrigan, M. (2008). Decision-making in Nursing: Thoughtful Approaches for Practice. Sudbury, Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. ProCon.org. (2013). Euthanasia ProCon.org. Retrieved from http://euthanasia.procon.org/ Silver, M.C. & Ludwic, R. (1999). Ethics: Interstate Nursing Practice and Regulation: Ethical Issues for the 21st Century. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing Vol. 4 No. 2. Tiedemann, M., & Valiquet, D. (2008). Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Canada. Parliament of Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/919-e.htm Zdenkowski, G. (1997). Human rights and euthanasia. Sydney: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Read More