Euthanasia Should be Permitted for Patients in a Persistent Vegetative State - Essay Example

?Euthanasia should be permitted for patients in a persistent vegetative Euthanasia, which is the practice of purposely ending one’s life to help one to lessen pain and distress, attracts different opinions. Those who are in favor of euthanasia consider that patients in a persistent vegetative state have the individual right to undergo euthanasia. On the other side, those who are against euthanasia consider that euthanasia is totally against the individual right to live. But both these arguments cannot be considered as completely right or wrong. Still, the argument that euthanasia should be permitted for patients in a persistent vegetative state is important because mere hope and optimism cannot save patients in a persistent vegetative state. Statement of proposition: I will therefore argue in favor of the proposition that euthanasia should be permitted for patients in a persistent vegetative state because pain and distress without any hope cannot help the patients in a persistent vegetative state. Overview The argument on euthanasia is a never ending process because both the sides (those who are in favor of and against euthanasia) have valid arguments. But when the term euthanasia is superimposed into the context of the patients in a persistent vegetative state, the argument against the same proves to be invalid. One can see that the best possible way beyond medical diagnosis to prove an individual is conscious or with enough intelligence is to apply an intelligence test. But a patient who is in a persistent vegetative state cannot respond to this type of measurement of intelligence. From a different angle of view, behavior analysis is helpful for a physician to have deeper understanding of human behavior and to take apt measures in critical conditions. The Journal article ‘Individual differences, intelligence, and behavior analysis’ mainly deals with the topic of individual difference and intelligence. According to Williams, Myerson, and Hale (2008), “Numerous tests have been developed to help assess intelligence, including tests of vocabulary, short-term memory span, analogical reasoning, story construction from pictures, etc., with such diversity seemingly belying the usefulness of intelligence as an explanatory construct” (p. 220). The research work undertaken by the psychologists to analyze human behavior is able to unveil the connection between the rate of processing and working memory. The fact that some individuals can learn complex materials with ease and some others fail to do so is interesting to a behavior analyst. These individual differences among individuals deeply influence their behavior. For instance, inability to learn complex materials leads some individuals to feel inferiority complex. This leads to long lasting change in bahavior and may affect their future life. As pointed out, all the tests that are made use to measure human intelligence is interconnected because the ultimate aim is same, to measure cognitive skills. But this cannot be implemented into the context of a patient who is undergoing persistent vegetative state because lack of memory hinders the process of measuring intelligence. As pointed out, intelligence tests can measure human behavior and predict certain behavioral characteristics. But the end result may vary because individual difference determines behavioral characteristics among individuals. Within the context of euthanasia, the medical practitioners face a dilemmatic situation because decision making will be fully vested upon them. The best possible way for a medical practitioner to deal with critical conditions in the field of medical science is to rely upon intelligence tests. The journal article Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns deals with major ideas and theories related to human intelligence. According to Neisser et al. (1996), “Individuals rarely perform equally well on all the different kinds of items included in a test of intelligence” (p.78). But one need not misunderstand that all the intelligence tests are developed to measure human intelligence. Instead, some of the intelligence tests measure scholastic aptitude and some other intelligence tests measure specific abilities among the individuals. Within this context, the psychometric approach is important because it is helpful to differentiate the performance of mentally challenged individuals (especially, children) from the individuals who face behavior problems. This is important because some of the children who face behavior problem are termed as mentally challenged. To be specific, tests can help doctors/psychologists to diagnose the real problem and can take apt measures to rectify the same. But, within the context of the patients in a constant vegetative condition, the intelligence tests that are used to measure human intelligence become helpless. The authors consider that the predictions put forth by intelligence tests are interconnected with hereditary and environmental factors. To be specific, the authors make clear that the difference in intelligence that can be seen among individuals is due to the influence of hereditary and environmental factors. Besides, the article provides ample importance to difference in intelligence among individuals who belong to different ethnic groups. Again, these concepts are applicable to the patients who are conscious about their illness. But the doctors who treat patients in a persistent vegetative state cannot apply intelligence tests because the patients cannot react to the same. So, one can see that almost all the tests that are used to measure human intelligence is not applicable to the patients in a constant vegetative condition. Intelligence tests can predict human behavior because human behavior is interconnected with intelligence or memory. When a patient is in a persistent vegetative state, he or she cannot take any decision on treatment. So, the relatives and doctors are authorized to take decision on continuing the available treatment or not to. But most of the relatives will show reluctance to apply euthanasia because no one will be ready to lose the patient. Besides, the patient’s relatives may not be aware of the physiological and emotional problems faced by the patient. On the other side, doctors are aware of these problems and their decision will be based upon medical ethics. Emanuel, Fairclough, and Emanuel (2000) stated that “They also show that, contrary to general perceptions, depression and hopelessness, rather than pain, seem to be the primary factors motivating patients’ interest in euthanasia or PAS.” (p. 2460). In certain situations, the emotional problems faced by patients can force them to accept euthanasia. On the other side, the patients in a constant vegetative condition are unable to take decisions of their own. In this situation, the patient’s relatives have the duty to take apt decision to reduce the problems faced by the patient. But the caregivers who are ignorant about the problems faced by the patient may consider euthanasia as an unwanted process to end the patient’s life without any solid reason. Within this context, doctors can play an important role by applying euthanasia. From a different angle of view, the behaviors predicted by an intelligence test cannot be applied in this context because the patient is unable to respond to any instruction from the doctor or a psychologist. So, the best possible way to help a patient in this stage is to apply euthanasia, not to leave in unending pain and distress. Personal opinion My personal opinion is that euthanasia should be permitted for patients in a constant vegetative condition. Besides, one needs to consider the suffering of the patients who are undergoing physical and emotional problems, but with no hope of recovery. If we provide ample importance to humanitarian consideration, euthanasia is the best possible way to help a patient from endless pain. Those who are against euthanasia consider that euthanasia is the process to kill someone and we do not have the right to do so. This argument is based upon mere ignorance because most of the medical practitioners are in favor of euthanasia. Within this context, one must not provide importance to religious perspective because it is totally against humanitarian consideration. Baume, O'Malley, and Bauman (1995) opined that “For those whose religious teachings are opposed, still to endorse and to acknowledge that they practise euthanasia, is one measure of how far our current services and arrangements fall short of what is possible or of what is needed” (p.53). We need to consider euthanasia as the process to help the patient to have relief from physical and emotional problems, not as homicide. When we consider euthanasia as homicide, the problems faced by the patients is neglected. Besides, medical ethics is not against euthanasia because the doctor’s duty is to save the patient or to help to reduce pain and related problems. The medical practitioners who are aware of the importance of euthanasia in the medical field are aware of the fact that these patients cannot return to normal life. Besides, one needs to consider the emotional turmoil faced by the relatives. They are forced to undergo emotional problems for a long time. Those who are against euthanasia do not consider the problems faced by the relatives of the patients. One can see that survival of patients who are facing death is most important. The importance is given to the lives of these patients leads to cruelty because those who are against euthanasia cannot solve the problems faced by these patients. Goel (2008) stated that “At the extreme ends of disagreement, advocates say euthanasia, also known as physician aid in dying, or physician assisted suicide, is a merciful method of death” (p.230). One can easily identify that living things have the tendency to sustain their life. But one need to understand the fact that human life is limited and death is real. When we consider the life of a patient in a constant vegetative condition, one can see that his or her life is a burden to himself/herself. Besides, a patient in a constant vegetative condition cannot communicate with the relatives or with the doctor. No one can share the physical and emotional problems faced by the patient. Besides, there exists no scope for recovery. In this situation, one need to consider that survival from death is entirely different to a patient in a persistent vegetative state. To be specific, extending life with the help of artificial equipments is cruelty. So, one need not consider euthanasia as an inhuman activity because the medical practitioners never ask or agree to kill their patients. Instead, they are in favor of minimizing the pain of their patients. Within this context, the best possible way to help a patient, whether one’s relative or not, is to permit euthanasia. In addition, euthanasia helps the patient to have dignified death, and this is not against medical ethics. Besides, time will heal the agony faced by the patient’s relatives and they can feel relief because the patient is not destined to suffer pain for unlimited time. So, I am in favor of the argument that euthanasia should be permitted for patients in a constant vegetative condition. References Baume, P., O'Malley, E., & Bauman, A. (1995). Professed religious affiliation and the practice of euthanasia. Journal of medical ethics, 21, 49-54. Emanuel, E. J., Fairclough, D. L., & Emanuel, L. L. (2000). Attitudes and Desires Related to Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Among Terminally Ill Patients and Their Caregivers. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 284 (19), 2460-2468. Goel, V. (2008). Euthanasia – A dignified end of life. International NGO Journal 3 (12), 224-231. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A.W., Brody, N., Ceci, S.J. … Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101. Williams. B., Myerson. J., & Hale, S. (2008). Individual differences, intelligence, and behavior analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 90 (2), 219–231. Read More