Euthanasia - Essay Example

? Due Euthanasia A Discussion of Case Study Everyone who is alive must eventually accept that no one lives forever, inevitably we will all die. Most do not like contemplating it, but all the same it is true. Today we argue continuously about what happens to us after we die, but, also, about how we can die, or more accurately, how we are allowed to. It is the latter that has caused and continues to cause, an immense amount of heated debate. Euthanasia, in all of its forms, is the intentional ending of or consciously allowing the life of another to end through action or inaction in order to end pain and suffering. Euthanasia can be the choice of the an individual and may be unassisted or assisted, by physicians, family, or friends. However, it should be clear that all variations of euthanasia have been deemed illegal in most locations. Suicide has always been a controversial issue. The moral beliefs of certain popular ideologies deem suicide a great sin, which can lead to the mindset that if you suffer greatly then you probably deserve to and when you die, that is when you were meant to. However, that thinking is not shared by everyone and to impose that mentality and force people to suffer until natural death occurs can be quite unfair. Euthanasia brings up many questions of ethics, morality, personal beliefs, and rights to individual autonomy. Death and Dignity: A Case of Individualized Decision Making, by Timothy E, Quill, is a fantastic example of situation where euthanasia has becomes a real consideration. The case study, told from the doctor’s point of view, is a very moving story involving a physician’s relationship with a particular patient, Diane, who is suffering from leukemia and has optioned to not undergo treatment; she is planning to die with dignity and has decided to take her own life (Quill 692). Doctor Quill’s justification throughout the whole process was supportive of, though not necessarily in agreement with, her decisions. He had worked in a hospice in the past, and he knew the kind of death that awaited her should the treatment not work. He also knew that the treatments available to her had a long list of unpleasant consequences that would diminish the quality of her life considerably. He had the practical experiences to sympathize with her position. He acknowledged that she passed all of the psychiatric competency tests to verify her mental state. She was informed of all of her options concerning treatments, interventions, statistical realities, and had made an informed decision of her own free will. Dr. Quill’s thinking throughout seemed to parallel with a utilitarian position. He considered Diane’s options; he weighed the stress upon her family, the quality of her life, however shortened, against all of the alternatives. He justified his logic by believing that the greatest good and least amount of harm would be achieved by supporting and endorsing her choices. He even went so far as to direct her to a reliable source to learn how to end her life successfully. Although, certain kinds of euthanasia are potentially unethical, and each individual should, probably, be best considered on an individual basis. In cases, like Diane’s, when she is making the informed choice concerning her own being then would it not be unethical to impose an alternative upon her or discredit her right to make her own choices. Dr. Quill described Diane as a string and forthright lady and he has no reason to deem her decision incompetent in any way (Quill 293). Besides it is unethical to question someone’s competence simply because their choice differ from what you consider the “correct” choice. However, if the same person chose the course of action that agreed with you own then you would never question their competence; of course, they are competent, they agree with you. I think that Dr. Quill made a wholly ethical decision based on his perceived perspective of attempting to promote the greater good and least harm in a completely un-ideal situation. Some might ask if he crossed an ethical line when he directed Diane to the “Hemlock” resource and authorized a prescription for sleep aids that he knew she was planning to save for the day when she would, ultimately, take her own life (Quill 693). Dr. Quill found good cause to take the course of action that he did. He did not choose that course of action lightly. He realized that if Diane truly wanted to end her life she would find a way. He, also, considered what might happen if she attempted suicide and failed. She could end up far worse off than her condition would have caused; he, also, tool into consideration what all of this might do to her family. He brought more good, less harm, and most importantly, he saw that he helped her achieve a quality of life and sense of peace that the treatment options, that might have prolonged her life, may never have successfully offered. In the end, Diane does follow through with her decision and ends her life on her own peacefully. When asked what had caused her death, Dr. Quill attributed it to her leukemia, instead of the sleeping pills she had ingested. Dr. Quill’s rationalization not to mention the overdose and suicide was quite predictable, given his attitude and actions throughout the case study. He saw that no words or actions would change the outcome and might bring more hurtful and, possible, legal consequences, which could negatively affect the family and Dr Quill himself (Quill 694). It would serve the greater good to cause more hurt to a family already grieving. As to the question of Dr. Quill lying about the cause of death, I do not think that I feel that he was lying. He said that leukemia caused Diane’s death, and technically it did. She may have ended her life with an overdose of sleeping pills, but she never would have done has she not been suffering from leukemia and all of the potential pain and suffering associated with it. So it really is a matter of perspective or, perhaps, philosophy. Ultimately, not everyone makes the same decisions as everyone else, but this does not necessarily make them wrong and does not mean that they are suffering from mental incompetence. When death is truly imminent, then no one should be expected to suffer until the end. Certain diseases guarantee death as surely as being hit by a train. However, some hit by a train will, likely, die instantly, but someone with a disease must die much more slowly. Euthanasia is the chosen equalizer for many individuals who wish to die with dignity. I think that Dr. Quill made, both, a logical and compassionate decision that helped contribute to making Diane’s last months of life and ultimate death a more positive one. I think, dependent on the situation, I would, likely, act the same if in a similar situation. Sometimes it really is best to let people decide for themselves what is truly best for them. Works Cited Quill, Timothy E. "Death and Dignity: A Case of Individualized Decision Making." New England Journal of Medicine 324.10 (1991): 691-694. Print. Read More