Ethical, Practical, Legal, and Religious Issues Concerning Euthanasia - Essay Example

Ethical, Practical, Legal, and religious issues Concerning Euthanasia Student’s Name Professor Course Date Introduction Euthanasia is a topic that has raised serious opposing arguments ethically, practically, and legally in many nations. The main question raised by many people is whether there are circumstances in which it is right to kill an innocent person. People supporting euthanasia argue that a person has a right to die if his or her death is not causing any harm to other people. On the contrary, anti-euthanasia arguments point out that the right to die belongs to God and mercy killing has detrimental effects on other people not only the patient. Practically, it is argued that if euthanasia is allowed, it can never be regulated and it will eventually be used as a cost-effective way of getting rid of terminally ill patients requiring expensive medical care. On the other hand, people supporting euthanasia argue that it can be regulated in such as a way that laws are passed that define the circumstances under which euthanasia is permissible. The main question that arises with practical arguments on euthanasia is whether it is a doctor’s obligation to prolong a terminally ill patient’s life. Ethical Theories on Euthanasia There have been various theories developed in relation to euthanasia. Utilitarianism response was developed by Bentham and mainly considers the intensity of the pain and its duration. According to this principle, the pain felt is so great and immediate but on the other hand, the chances of obtaining cure in the future are distant. Just as Corey and Callanan, (2010, p. 53) explain, in most medical cases where euthanasia is thought as a solution, the pain and suffering is so great that would make this theory perceive euthanasia as ethical. Another theorist who could have supported this theory is Mill, as he believed in the independence of a person to make decisions. Kant’s ethical theory insists that the outcome of an action should not be judged on ethical grounds. This is because there are some wrong actions that may lead to unplanned good results. According to Kant’s perception, it is ethically wrong to kill someone out of compassion or good intentions of ending suffering. This is because it would corrupt the universal laws in such a way that all terminally ill patients should be helped to die. According to Kant, it is ethically right by doing what reason dictates, which is assisting a terminally ill patient become well by administering the right medication. From this, it is clear that Kant believed in the law of nature just like Marxism. However, according to Hope (2004, p. 132), many Kantians in the current society would disagree with him. They would argue that a person has a right to make decision on when and how to die and that such a decision should be included in the natural law. The natural law mainly focuses on moral values. Research shows that this law has provoked various religious responses, especially by the Catholic Church on sacredness of life. According to this law, life is sacred and hence it is morally right to respect it. Marxism points out that the end does not justify the means. This shows that no suffering or pain is enough to justify an evil deed, which in this case is euthanasia. It is always ethical to do good things and avoid evil. According to Harris (2005, p. 67), natural law clearly opposes active euthanasia, but indirectly may allow a good intention of relieving pain, even if that action may lead to the death of the suffering person, which is referred to as the Doctrine of Double effect. Recent research shows that another category of ethics in relation to euthanasia is referred to as situational ethics. According to these ethics, the most loving thing to do to a suffering person is to give him or her, a peaceful death hence relieving him or her of the pain and suffering. Just as Harris (2005) explains, according to these ethics, it is always right to act out of love by allowing a suffering person die, instead of keeping him or her alive to suffer. According to Johns (2006, p. 145), situational ethics always go against the laws on euthanasia, as it dismisses them on the grounds of acting out of love and compassion. It is clear that a situational ethicist may argue that even though the law does not allow euthanasia, it will be ethically right to break the law and help a suffering person to die. The other theory is based on virtues. This theory developed by Aristotle focuses on happiness. According to this theory, people should develop the virtues of courage, temperance, and patience. These virtues are aimed at ensuring that people are happy. According to Aristotle, the terminally ill patients should develop courage enough to accept their fortune. However, it is not clear whether Aristotle would accept euthanasia or not. According to Aristotle’s argument, if a terminally ill patient wants to live a happy life, he or she would have the wisdom and judgment to make a decision whether to live or die. It is clear that this theory places the good of a society above that of an individual. Taking for instance in developing countries where many people live below the poverty line, euthanasia would mean much in relation to the society’s wellbeing. Arguments on Euthanasia Ethical Arguments According to Mason and Laurie (2006, p. 89), euthanasia devalues the respect that people have for the sacredness of life. In relation to this argument, all human beings are to be valued irrespective of their age, sex, and health status among other factors. Human life is sacred because it is a gift from God. This means that euthanasia or mercy killing is evil. In opposition to this, the people supporting euthanasia argue that despite the fact that life is scared, human beings have a right to choose what happens to them. Another anti-euthanasia ethical argument is that if euthanasia is accepted, it will lead to the perception that some lives are worth than others such as the terminally ill patients, the elderly, and the disabled. This will lead to involuntary euthanasia that will be used in getting rid of people thought to be undesirable in the society. However, this argument is strongly opposed by supporters of euthanasia. They argue that euthanasia can be regulated. However, regulation of euthanasia is almost impossible with human beings since some people will still practice it for personal gains. According to Cook, Dickens and Fathalla (2003, p. 33), another pro-euthanasia argument is that death is a private and personal matter, and if it is not affecting or harming other people, then other people do not have any right to interfere with it. However, this argument is opposed by the anti-euthanasia argument that indicates that euthanasia affects other people not only the suffering patient. The choice of a person to die affects the close relatives and friends, and the medical caregivers. This decision will also pressure other people in similar situations to make similar decisions. According to some people, euthanasia is not necessary with proper palliative care. Palliative care encompasses, emotional, spiritual, and physical care of a dying person. This is of high importance in situations where cure is not possible. The love and compassion given to the dying person and the family may hinder one from considering euthanasia. However, people supporting euthanasia argue that it is no one’s obligation to prolong someone’s life. According to Herring (2008, p. 235), even doctors are not obliged to prolong a terminally ill patient’s life if the condition has proved to be incurable. Practical Arguments The main practical argument against euthanasia is that proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary. However, just as explained earlier, supporters of euthanasia point out that it is no one’s obligation to influence or prolong someone’s life in any way. According to Garwood et al. (2005, p. 57), another anti-euthanasia argument is that if euthanasia is allowed, medical care for the terminally ill patients will be compromised. This is because the terminally ill patients who do not chose euthanasia will be viewed as burdens and the doctors may become less committed to take care of them. However, people who support euthanasia argue that if euthanasia is regulated with proper laws, then it cannot influence doctor’s commitment to perform their duties. According to these people, some rules are better than none. It is better to have some rules and laws that regulate euthanasia than have none at all, since it will take place anyway, even if it is prohibited. According to Sheldon and Thompson (1998, p. 79), some other people who oppose euthanasia argue that if euthanasia is legalized, it will give doctors much power. In relation to this argument, a doctor may intentionally commit an act or omission important in saving a patient’s life for their personal gain and stand not guilty before a court of law. However, people supporting euthanasia argue that it is not impossible to punish doctors who overstep the set rules and regulations, but is difficult. They argue that even though euthanasia remains illegal, doctors will still practice it. Therefore, it is important if it is made legal and some rules put to regulate it. Another practical argument against euthanasia is that it might discourage future research for finding cure for the diseases that have been termed incurable. If euthanasia will be permitted, then there will be no motivation of finding drugs for treating the present incurable diseases. On the other hand, proponents of euthanasia argue that allowing euthanasia will not deter medical researchers from finding cure for incurable diseases since not every terminally ill patient will be ready to choose euthanasia and hence have a right to continue living. According to empirical research, human population is increasing at a rate faster than the resources, available to support it. This is where another pro-euthanasia argument generates. Many terminally ill patients require many resources for medical maintenance. Therefore, by allowing euthanasia, it will help relieve the stress on these resources. However, this argument is highly opposed especially by the religious groups. They argue that the value and sanctity of life as a gift from God cannot be compared to the value of resources that are used in maintaining that life. However, there are some circumstances where the people who oppose euthanasia indirectly support it. This is where a doctor administers medication to a patient out of good intention and accidently the medication results into side effects that lead into the death of the patient. This is referred to as the Doctrine of double effect and it is argued that it is ethically and morally right. The Doctrine of Double Effect According to Marjorie and Howard (1997, p. 39), there are some sustaining interventions whereby a doctor may administer a medication to sustain the life of a patient but accidently, the side effects of the medication lead to the death of the patient. Such an effect is referred to as the Double Doctrine Effect. According to this principle, it is ethically right to do something, which is morally good, even though it might have a side effect, which is morally bad. This is because, when a doctor administers a drug to relieve or cure a condition, he or she does not intentionally intend to harm the patient through the side effects. It is also ethically right even though the doctor predicted or foresaw the bad effects that would result, because he or she administered the drug or injection with good intentions of relieving the immediate pain. According to Beauchamp and Childress (2009, p. 178), this principle is used in justifying cases where a doctor prescribes medication to a patient to relieve pain or other distressing symptoms, despite the fact that the medication my result to death or shorten the life of the patient. It is argued in the situations that the doctor does not aim to directly harm or kill the patient, but it results are as a bad result of the side effects. In fact, the doctor had good intentions of reducing the pain or depression of the patient. Research shows that many doctors use this doctrine to justify the use of high dosages such as that of morphine in relieving suffering in patients who are terminally ill, even though they know that such dosage shortens the life of the patients. Various factors apply in the Doctrine of double effect. The Doctrine applies in cases where the good results are achieved independent of the bad ones. This means that if the only way of relieving a patient of his or her pain is by killing him or her, then the doctrine does not apply. The Doctrine cannot also be used in giving a patient a dose more than it is required to control the pain, since such an action will not be proportional to the cause. In addition, the action must be appropriate, meaning that the medicine given should be appropriate for treating the symptoms. Religious Objections to Euthanasia Research shows that religion has been on the opposing side of euthanasia since time in history. According to Ravenscroft and Bell (2000, p. 49), most of the religious arguments against euthanasia are based on the notion that life is sacred, as it is a gift from God and hence the decision to end life does not belong to human beings, but God. Religious people agree that a person can kill him or herself or make someone do it because they acknowledge the fact that God has given human beings a free will to do whatever they want. However, they point out that doing such an act will be against the will of God. According to religious teachings, human beings are creation of God and hence this limits our free will in ending our lives, as we will be denying our creator His control over our lives. Another religious argument against euthanasia is that suffering has a certain positive value. In 1984, Pope John Paul II argued that through suffering and perseverance, a person is drawn close to Christ. In relation to this, the religious attitude towards suffering is that people should help the people in suffering to bear the pain and not by eliminating them through mercy killing. Some non-religious people also support the value of suffering. They argue that through suffering, people get a chance to grow in personality and wisdom. They also argue that people who endure suffering with dignity set a good example to other people in the society, by showing them how they are supposed to behave when faced with problems. Religious teachings also point out that the dying period of a person is the most important than any other time in life. This is because, as a person goes through the final days of his or her life on earth, one has time to concentrate on important aspects of one’s life such as the relationship with God and forget about the earthly goals of self-fulfilment. Therefore, if euthanasia is allowed, it would deny people this excellent opportunity. Euthanasia and Law In the UK According to Slapper and Kelly (2006, p. 87), euthanasia can be legally defined as an act or omission in medical care, which might result in the death of a patient. Legally, active euthanasia means that medication is administered with an intention of ending someone’s life. As Hoffman and Rowe (2006, p. 77) point out, current law in the UK states that active euthanasia is liable to murder and against the law as stated in section2(1) of the suicide Act of 1961. The main issue that arises with many legal cases involving euthanasia is withdrawal of life support or medical treatment to let someone die. According to Jackson (2010), this question arose in the case of Dr Arthur involving the death of baby John Pearson born 28th June 1980 and died three days after. In this case, Dr Arthur was alleged of killing baby John diagnosed with Down’s syndrome immediately after his birth through starvation. It was claimed that the doctor refused to operate on the dysfunctional intestines of the baby, which was ruled as an active form of euthanasia. The doctor pleaded not guilty and later was acquitted of murder. Another legal perspective; euthanasia case that made a landmark in this field is that of Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland. In this particular case, Bland, a boy 17 years was left seriously injured following the April 15th 1989 disaster in Hillsborough Stadium. The accident left Bland in a “permanent vegetative state (PVS)” until 1993. After his parents lost hope of his coming back to a normal state, they were assisted by “NHS hospital trust” to seek consent from High Court to remove the life support that had been sustaining his life. The High Court as well as the House of Lords granted them the permission. Following this decision, the then president of High Court Division, Sir Mark Potter ruled in the case of J. on December 6th 2006, by declaring that the life support of a 53-year old woman, who had been in PVS since 1993, could be withdrawn. In other Countries According to Montgomery (2005, p. 23), euthanasia has been decriminalized in many nations like “Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland.” Research shows that Dutch Supreme Court is among the first courts to legalize voluntary euthanasia. Dutch also emerged the first European nation to legalize grown-ups euthanasia. It is argued that the Dutch scheme is made up of an elaborate medically organized and executed course of action. In this scheme, the first approach is because the patient, the family and the authorities must be given ample time to reconsider their decision. The second approach is that the patient must have made his or her decision without being pressured. Under this approach, the patent must be terminally ill, undergoing great suffering and it has been proven that there is no other solution to the condition. Research also point out that Dutch law allows voluntary euthanasia of children aged between 16 and 17 years, as they can make independent sound judgments. However, their parents must be involved in the whole decision making process. For children between 12 and 16 years, the approval of their parents or guardians must be sought. The fourth Dutch approach to euthanasia indicates that if a patient can no longer communicate, but had made prior written request concerning termination of his or her life before they became ill, then a doctor is allowed to carry out euthanasia to see to it that their request is honoured. According to empirical research, Dutch approach to euthanasia has received many objections especially from a religious point of view. However, it is argued that the Dutch law in form of physician-assisted euthanasia is now widely and openly practiced in countries such as Netherlands. Conclusion It is clear from the discussion that Euthanasia remains a highly controversial topic in many nations up to date. Many people supporting euthanasia argue that people have a right to chose how and when to end their lives. Keeping someone alive to suffer when it has already been proved they cannot be relieved of their pain and suffering is of no importance. On the other hand, anti-euthanasia arguments point out that if euthanasia is allowed, it will be misused to get rid of undesirable people in the society. Religiously, euthanasia goes against God’s will and devalues life as a gift from God. Despite various objections, voluntary euthanasia has been legalized in many nations like Dutch and Netherlands. Reference List Beauchamp, T. L & Childress, J. F 2009, Principles of biomedical ethics, 6th ed. Oxford University Press, London Cook, R., Dickens, B & Fathalla, M 2003, Reproductive health and human rights: integrating medical ethics and law, Oxford University Press, Oxford Corey, G., Corey, M & Callanan, P 2010, Issues and ethics in the helping professions, Cengage Learning, Wadsworth Garwood, A., Tingle, J & Wheat, K 2005, Contemporary issues in healthcare law and ethics, Elselvier, Butterworth Heinmann, London: Harris, J 2005, The value of life. An introduction to medical ethics, Routledge, London Herring, J 2008, Medical law and ethics, 2nd Ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hoffman, D & Rowe, J 2006, Human rights in the UK: An introduction to the Human Rights Act 1998 2nd ed. Pearson Education, Harlow: Hope, T 2004, Medical ethics. a very short introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford Jackson, E 2010, Medical law: Text, cases and materials, Oxford University Press, Oxford Johns, R 2006, Using the law in social work, Learning Matters, Exeter Marjorie B. Z & Howard, D. Z 1997, Medical Futility and the Evaluation of Life- Sustaining Interventions, Cambridge Oxford University Press. Mason, J. K & Laurie, G.T 2006, Mason and McCall Smith’s law and medical ethics, 7th ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford Montgomery, J 2005, Health care law, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford Ravenscroft & Bell 2000, End of Life decision making within intensive care -objective, consistent, defensible? JME, December 2000. Sheldon, S & Thompson, M 1998, Feminist perspectives on health care law, Routledge, London Slapper, G & Kelly, D 2006, The English Legal System, 8th Ed, Routledge Cavendish, Oxford Read More