Euthanasia is Morally Incorrect - Essay Example

Euthanasia is Morally Incorrect Introduction Euthanasia is deliberately bringing about the death of a person who is dying from a disease either, which is incurable or who is in a vegetative state from which he cannot recover. Euthanasia has been practiced in many cultures for millennia but while this may be the case, it remains to be a violation of basic principles on human life (Saul 2014, para.6). Euthanasia is an action, which is morally incorrect because it involves taking away the life of an individual, which goes against the principle of preserving life that is required of all medical practitioners. Euthanasia has become an issue of contention in many societies because while it is believed to be a means of alleviating the pain and suffering of patients who are suffering from terminal diseases. It is morally incorrect because it allows one human to take away the life of another; an act that should be frowned upon (Narbekovas & Meilius 2004, p.2). All human beings have to die a natural death and there should be no excuse to take the life of an individual to alleviate pain and suffering because in the modern world, strong pain killers have been developed to ensure that pain is significantly reduced among patients. However, putting euthanasia into practice presents a moral dilemma for those medical practitioners who preside over it because it is a contravention of the Hippocratic Oath, which they take as a guarantee that they will be dedicated in preserving human life. Therefore, while the advocates for euthanasia state that it helps to end suffering, it is also a violation of the basic principles of life that have sustained societies for ages. In this paper, there will be a discussion of the ramifications of euthanasia on the society, the principles that make it a moral issue, as well as its impact on the individuals who take part in it. The discussion will be based on recent years, where euthanasia has been conducted as a means of removing the financial burden from medical expenses from families. In addition, in some cases, it has been done in direct violation of the wishes of patients and this has made euthanasia something akin to murder rather than as a means of ending the suffering of patients. Euthanasia is an act that is immoral because it goes against all the principles of life as dictated by religion; where the right to take away life belongs only to God rather than to human beings. Moreover, when euthanasia is conducted, there is often a failure to consider the emotional toll that it might take on the families of the patients because not only might they feel guilty and be full of regret for allowing it to happen, but it might lead to some of them falling into depression. Furthermore, with or without the consent of the patients, it is wrong to have a part in euthanasia because is an act that dehumanises individuals, especially physicians, making them put in less effort to save the lives of patients and instead encouraging patients to take the easy way out. Passive Euthanasia Passive euthanasia is the process where a medical practitioner deliberately withdraws all forms of services that are designed to ensure that the life of a patient is sustained. In this way, the patient is allowed to die naturally without any further form of medical intervention to preserve his life longer. However, despite this practice being legal in some countries, it is a fact that medical practitioners are neglecting their responsibilities towards their patients through their actions because instead of helping in the preservation of life, they end up doing the opposite, namely facilitating the patients’ death (Van Berkum, Holleman, Nieuwland, Otten & Murre 2009, p.1095). In most cases, medical practitioners often follow decisions that are made by either the patients or their relatives and while the latter’s desires have to be considered, they should not involve ending the life of a patient. It is the responsibility of physicians to ensure that the lives of their patients are sustained no matter the circumstances and they should do their best to make it possible for patients to have an opportunity to get better, even if the attempt might prove to be futile. One argument for passive euthanasia that has been made is that it is the right of a patient or his proxies to decide whether to withdraw from treatment or not. This argument is often made based on a belief in the autonomy of patients as well as their right to privacy, which allows them to refuse treatment when they think that it might not work for them. The argument for patient autonomy is not right and should not be used to justify passive euthanasia because if a patient dies when a physician has knowledge of what is killing him, then it should be considered murder (Varelius 2013, p.229). No matter what the circumstances, a physician cannot neglect the needs of his patients because to do so would mean that he is violating the Hippocratic Oath, which makes it his responsibility to preserve life as long as possible. There are certain circumstances where the withdrawal of treatment fails to have the desired effect of ensuring that a patient dies, resulting in his being relieved from suffering. Instead, the patient might end up in a worse condition than he was in already, making it difficult for him to return to a relatively stable state. Moreover, a patient might end up undergoing more suffering than he was in already, defeating the purpose of ensuring that he dies in a humane manner. Passive euthanasia is a cruel practice which should not be condoned by anyone who is in the medical profession because it might result in the creation of more suffering than is perceived (Rachels 1998, p.449). Furthermore, although it is considered to allow for a more humane death, passive euthanasia shows the lack of remorse that medical practitioners and proxies of patients who take it upon themselves to abandon their responsibility at a critical time of need. This tends to be especially the case where the patient has expressed reservation about being withdrawn from treatment while their proxies support the process; this mostly being done either because of the expenses to be incurred during treatment, or because of the relatives’ belief that they are doing what is best for the patient. The result is that it goes against the principle of non-malfeasance, which stands against harming patients in the process of treatment, and this most especially when it is against their express wishes. Passive euthanasia can be considered less compassionate and humane than active euthanasia because it involves the continued suffering of a patient until such a time as he or she dies naturally (Beauchamp & Childress 1998, p.443). The decision to undertake it is normally extremely harmful not only for patients, but also for relatives and physicians involved in the process because they might end up not being able to handle the consequences of the process; believing that they could have done something to ensure that the patients’ lives were made more comfortable in their last moments. In some cases, relatives go on living with such regret, especially when they realize that there is something that could have been done to save the patient’s life that they either become emotional wrecks or choose to end their lives in order to get over their grief. Therefore, it can be argued that despite the need to ensure that patients do not undergo suffering over prolonged periods when there is no hope of recovery, the act of taking away their lives through passive euthanasia should not be given credence because it is not a humane manner of ending suffering. The failure by physicians to take the step to save the life of their patients through administering treatment is a means of increasing the latter’s suffering because they have to live in suffering for an indefinite period before they succumb to their diseases. Active Euthanasia Active euthanasia involves a direct intervention by a physician in ensuring that a terminally ill patient is given lethal drugs to end their lives. This is normally done through a physician’s choosing to provide the drugs that a patient needs to end his own life or the physician might choose to administer the drug himself, in this way becoming an active participant. There are two forms of active euthanasia, voluntary and non-voluntary, with the former involving a patient’s conscious decision while the latter does not involve a patient’s input. Voluntary active euthanasia Voluntary euthanasia often involves patient input especially when he or she realizes that the treatment that is being received will not do anything to save their lives or alleviate the pain that they are undergoing (Beauchamp & Walters 2012, p.490). In many cases, patients often choose to undergo euthanasia in cases where the diagnosis shows that their illness is not treatable. Since this might bring a lot of suffering to their families and loved ones, both emotionally and financially, especially if they are not well off, they choose to undergo active euthanasia to spare their loved ones. Moreover, there are instances where patients who despite not being willing to go through the procedure are often forced to do so because of circumstances where they imagine themselves going through a lot of pain and suffering. However, the reality is that physicians should have no part to play in euthanasia, whether it is directly or not because to do so would mean they are failing in their duties towards their patients. The aim of medical practice is to ensure healing and preservation of human life and this has been the guiding principle of physicians for centuries, as dictated by the Hippocratic Oath. Physicians who have participated in active euthanasia assert that they have been adversely affected by what they have done, especially being shocked by the suddenness of the death, which they have indirectly brought about. There are times when physicians are caught in their patient’s determination to end their life and these tend to put a lot of pressure on the physicians to assist them in achieving death. This leaves many physicians in a dilemma because they do not know what to do in such situations, whether to accede to their patient’s request or not (Cowell 2012, p.10). One of the reasons why a physician may agree to assist his patient to end his life is because of the feeling of helplessness that envelopes them when they realize that they cannot do anything more for their patient. Having to witness the patient’s suffering on a daily basis may drive a physician to provide his patient with the means to end his or her life. One would argue that for a physician to become an active participant in active euthanasia would ensure the destruction of the trust that exists between physicians and their patients. This is because physicians would no longer be working towards the preservation of life but will instead have turned themselves into the willing executioners of their patients (Beauchamp & Walters 2012, p.506). In addition, there are instances where a patient’s decision to undergo active euthanasia might have a negative impact on their relatives, creating a situation where it is difficult for them to understand why the patient is willing to take the easy way out of their suffering (Williams 2013, para.4). The legalisation of voluntary active euthanasia would mean that even those patients who are not willing to undergo the procedure might be subjected to it especially when their proxies decide to make the decision on their behalf. This would be because while the current law that looks upon voluntary active euthanasia as homicide will be absent, thus leaving unwilling patients helpless before the law. Moreover, it might encourage patients of all sorts, even those whose illnesses are not serious, to seek the easy way out as a means of ensuring that their temporary suffering is brought to an end. Non-voluntary active euthanasia Non-voluntary active euthanasia takes place when a patient’s relative or proxy makes the decision on behalf of the patient. This is normally done without the express consent of a patient and might in fact be in violation of his or her wishes considering that he might not be willing to undergo the procedure. Non-voluntary active euthanasia should not be practiced because there is no reason for conducting such a procedure if the necessary resources for the provision of palliative care are available (Juth, Lindblad, Lynöe, Sjöstrand & Helgesson 2013, p.203). One of the reasons why many people make the decision on behalf of patients to undergo active euthanasia is not so much because of the pain, but because of the lack of the resources to make the patients’ illnesses more bearable. The best way to solve the problem of non-voluntary euthanasia is to ensure that the best palliative care should be the standard type of care that the terminally ill should receive and that anything leaning towards euthanasia should be made undesirable. The problem that arises concerning palliative care is that it fails to recognize that it does not necessarily alleviate the pain and discomfort that many of the terminally ill patients feel. In fact, palliative care does not normally have the resources necessary to prevent the pain the patients feel. Instead, the very least that such care can do is to make a patient comfortable without necessarily providing relief (Varelius 2012, p.559). However, the improvement of palliative care is responsible for a reduction in active euthanasia because patients end up feeling more comfortable than they previously were, ensuring that they wish to live on for a little longer. Thus, non-voluntary euthanasia should not be a desirable outcome in terminally ill patients because it not only takes the life away from possibly unwilling individuals, but it might also be used by selfish proxies or relatives as a means of escaping their responsibilities towards patients (The Sydney Morning Herald 2013, para.13). The end result of non-voluntary active euthanasia is that it might not work in the best interests of patients but might provide an incentive for relatives, especially when wealth is involved, to get rid of patients so that they might get to inherit it. Therefore, it is important for this form of euthanasia to be discouraged because it is dehumanizing as well as infringes on the right of individuals to life as well as to its natural end. Conclusion Most of the arguments against euthanasia made in this discussion are based on the morality of this practice, especially when the sanctity of life is considered. Among the arguments made is that euthanasia is essentially wrong and that even those who are in great suffering because that would be playing God should not do it. Furthermore, euthanasia is incompatible with the goals of medicine which is to heal the sick and to preserve lives, and that it is immoral for any physician to think of assisting their patients’ bid to end their life because he would be defeating the purpose of his profession. One would further argue that as long as either a patient is given the palliative care that is appropriate it will not be necessary for them or their relatives and proxies to resort to euthanasia because there would be some form of relief for their pain. Finally, if the patients were to be given proper medical care and their psychological needs taken care of, the likelihood of a significant reduction of requests of deaths to end their suffering would be most reduced. References Beauchamp, T. & Walters, L. (2012). Contemporary Issues in Bioethics, 8th edition. Belmont, California: Wadsworth. Beauchamp, T.L. & Childress, J.F. (1998). Rachels on active and passive euthanasia', in Contemporary Issues in Bioethics, 5th edition. Belmont: California, Wadsworth. Cowell, A. (2012). Stroke victims wins right to seek legal euthanasia. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/world/europe/stroke-victim-in-great-britain-wins-right-to-seek-legal-euthanasia.html Juth, N., Lindblad, A., Lynöe, N., Sjöstrand, M., & Helgesson, G. (2013). Moral differences in deep continuous palliative sedation and euthanasia. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, 3(2), 203. Doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2012-000431 Narbekovas, A., & Meilius, K. (2004). Why is the ethics of euthanasia wrong? Medical Ethics & Bioethics: Journal of the Institute Of Medical Ethics & Bioethics, 11(3-4), 2-6. Rachel, J. (1998). Active and passive euthanasia', in Contemporary Issues in Bioethics, 5th edition. Belmont, California: Wadsworth. Saul, P. (2014). Do people really have the right to a rational suicide? The Conversation. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/do-people-really-have-the-right-to-a-rational-suicide-29658 The Sydney Morning Herald. (2013). ‘You’re all gutless': euthanasia bill defeated.. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/youre-all-gutless-euthanasia-bill-defeated-20130523-2k3jv.html Van Berkum, J. A., Holleman, B., Nieuwland, M., Otten, M., & Murre, J. (2009). Right or Wrong? The Brain's Fast Response to Morally Objectionable Statements. Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 20(9), 1092-1099. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02411.x Varelius, J. (2012). Ending Life, Morality, and Meaning. Ethical Theory & Moral Practice, 16(3), 559-574. Doi: 10.1007/s10677-012-9374-3. Varelius, J. (2013). Voluntary Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide, and the Right to do wrong. HEC Forum, 25(3), 229-243. Doi: 10.1007/s10730-013-9208-2. Williams, P. (2013). Euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke detained by immigration in London. ABC. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-23/euthanasia-advocate-philip-nitschke-detained-by-immigration-in-/4774726 Read More