Euthanasia is Morally Incorrect - Essay Example

Euthanasia is Morally Incorrect Euthanasia is morally incorrect Introduction The sanctity of life has remained a controversial philosophical and moral topic that has contributed to the emergence of a number of moral and ethical principles. Due to the different positions held by ethicists and moral philosophers, euthanasia has been supported or opposed based on the utilitarian, utility and deontological principles. Other legal arguments such as respect of patient autonomy, the moral of life, the provisions of the Hippocratic Oath among other theories have been used to oppose and support the act. Most of these principles attempt to highlight the need to preserve life and treat patients with dignity while under medical care. One topic that has attracted wide spread varying opinions and controversy is euthanasia, a practice that is classified as good death. By denoting euthanasia as good death, a comparison is made on the essence of staying alive and inducing death. In most cases, patients suffering from terminal conditions such are cancer lose the interest and desire to live though natural death may not be possible. Euthanasia, otherwise known as mercy death, is the process of voluntarily or involuntarily assisting a terminally ill patient to commit suicide. The development of this practice has been motivated by the need to eliminate intractable suffering in patients with chronic and terminal illnesses (Beauchamp & Walters, 2012). However, the advancement and acceptance of the use of euthanasia in some countries especially in Europe has created moral and ethical dilemma in the medical practice due to its direct contravention of the Hippocratic Oath, a binding statement that medical practitioners make before being allowed to practice. The argument that life is sacred and no argument can be provided to grant doctors to take it away in the name of euthanasia has continuously been used to oppose the process. However, some situations have created a dilemma in which the value of life is weighed against death, a situation that provides support for euthanasia. In this paper, I take the position that euthanasia cannot be morally justified as life is sacred and cannot be taken away at will through medical justification. However the slippery slope and wedge arguments have been used by proponents to argue for the adoption of this practice in countries like the united states and the united kingdom (Juth, Lindblad, Lynöe, Sjöstrand & Helgesson, 2013). Types of euthanasia Moral support or opposition to euthanasia must discern the two types of euthanasia that are currently adopted by medical practitioners in hospitals across the world. Passive euthanasia is the most commonly used form of euthanasia especially in countries where the act is considered illegal and the doctors may be held accountable should they be found culpable. In passive euthanasia, the medical professionals deliberately withdraw from offering essential medical services and intervention to the patient that is essential in artificially sustaining life (Beauchamp & Walters, 2012). As a result, death occurs but as a natural consequence of the terminal condition that the patient that was suffering from. Now dubbed ‘foregoing life-sustaining treatment’, passive euthanasia is considered as euthanasia because it involves making of an active decision to deprive the patient of essential life support care with or without the knowledge of patient or the relatives. However, a number of ethical principles have been used to support passive euthanasia such as autonomy of the patient which grants them the right to refuse treatment; passive euthanasia cannot be considered morally right. This is because the doctor together with the relatives who are tasked with the right to ensure the safety of the patient makes a deliberate decision not to act (Varelius, 2013). By failing to make an action towards sustaining and saving the life of the patient is in itself an action that leads to foregoing essential treatment to the patient. In most cases, making a decision on passive euthanasia may results into the withdrawal of life sustaining treatment or to adopt extra ordinary measures to save the life of the patient. Though considered as mercy and humanly deaths, passive euthanasia shows the lack of remorse of the medical practitioners and the relatives of the patients who take it upon themselves to abandon their responsibility at a critical time of need. This is more so in cases where the patient had expressed reservation to undergoing the procedure while the relatives support the process. This is against the principle of non-maleficence argues against harming patients in the process of treatment (Van Berkum, Holleman, Nieuwland, Otten & Murre, 2009). Though passive euthanasia has been viewed by opponents as compassionate and human, it is more damaging and harmful to the patient that active euthanasia. Both the patient and the relatives will be harmed by this decision and this further complicates its adoption. Relatives, for example, may find it morally impossible to live with their decision, bearing in mind that the accuracy of the information that was used for this information, may be doubtable. However, the question of prolonged suffering and elimination of this through euthanasia has been used to water down the arguments of the opponents. Though a patient should not be subjected to prolonged suffering, taking away their life through euthanasia to eliminate the harm cannot be viable grounds for euthanasia. By failing to take a deliberate step to save the patient’s life through essential treatment, the actual suffering of the patient is not eliminated but instead magnified due to the removal of painkillers and other medications. Such patients are forced to suffer and endure pain for a long and indefinite period until they die from a natural death. The withdrawal of the essential life support services is not a guarantee that the patient will die shortly after, but rather a step that may subject the person to more suffering in his last hours alive (Beauchamp & Childress, 1998). Nothing is human in an act that seeks to eliminate life by adopting a more painful and uncontrolled way that harms the patient and subjects them to the mercies of the terminal illness under the watchful eye of the doctor. When we decide to deliberately ignore and abandon people that we are tasked to take care of during their time of need, our actions cannot be morally justified. In some cases of passive euthanasia such as stopping of the respirator, death fails to occur and instead the suffering of the patient is magnified and this makes the medical practitioners more culpable to murder (Beauchamp & Walters, 2012). Active euthanasia Passive euthanasia allows the medical condition to take toll of the patient and eventually lead to death without the action of the medical professionals, a situation that is opposite of active euthanasia. In this case, the disease or injury does not lead to death, rather a deliberate decision and action to terminate the life of the patient (Beauchamp & Childress, 1998). According to the Hippocratic Oath that was developed in the 4th BC, medical professionals swear to practice medical practice and skills under ethical and moral boundaries. As such, doctors are tasked with role of curing the patient of the conditions they are suffering from as opposed to taking the life away. Hippocratic Oath thus forbids doctors to misuse their power, knowledge and influence to kill the patient in the name of relieving them of their pains through euthanasia. Euthanasia is therefore a moral justification of situation in which the doctors misuses their power and knowledge and end up harming the patients that they are legally and ethically required to protect. In the event that the patient is likely to recover from the condition, euthanasia cannot be considered as a good death, but rather murder. It also involves the deliberate use of certain medical intervention that though have good short term benefits, may be harmful to the patient in the long run (Beauchamp & Walters, 2012). Arguments against voluntary active euthanasia Voluntary active euthanasia requires the input of the patient and this leads to the creation of moral and psychological challenge and impact on the patient. This result from the fact that patient is required to understand the complete extent of the pain, hopelessness and suffering that they will be subjected to all at once. This arises from the use of the different active euthanasia approaches available in different parts of the world including Australia and the United States. While natural death is also accompanied with physical pain and suffering, this is equally distributed during the final hours of the patient. This is not the case with voluntary active euthanasia as the patient is exposed to a shortened period of hopelessness, pain and suffering with a very limited period of time (Jochemsen & Keown, 1999). In cases where patients are not willing to take the dreadful step of accepting voluntary active euthanasia, they are exposed to the torturing and tormenting information that affects their progress and recovery. The burden of such unwanted information may affect the normal recovery and progress of the patient and increase the medical burden on the hospital and dependents. In some cases, patients accept euthanasia to avoid the guilt of living and increasing the burden to their dependents. This may be the situation despite the patient developing a moral position against euthanasia in other circumstances apart from the period of illness. Research has shown that patients who have expressed opposition towards voluntary active euthanasia live with the fear of a possible termination of their life without their consent. This has been the case despite the safeguards that have been put in place to ensure that the patient is safe from active euthanasia. Most people in nursing homes and hospitals struggle with anxiety and possibility of being euthanized without their consent. This emotional regression limits the chances of patients from recovering, as would have been the case if such information would not have been provided to the patient. not all chronic illnesses can be considered terminal as the patient has some chances of surviving, a chance that can be eliminated through adopting euthanasia. The knowledge that people around them are subjected to euthanasia related killings increases their apprehension that they may be subjected to a similar situation (Beauchamp & Walters, 2012). According to Rachel (1998), the relatives of patients who are subjected to voluntary active euthanasia are subjected to more suffering than the patient himself. This arises from the consequentialist theory in which an individual lives in self-blame from a decision they make on the lives of those legally entrusted to them. The family of the patient in most cases fined the decision to adopt voluntary active euthanasia repugnant and akin to suicide. This increases the moral suffering and guilt in the relatives of the patient who are forced to make such a decision on behalf of a patient. The decision to accept or reject euthanasia should be subject to the relative’s discussion and common agreement to eliminate the possibility of guilt and suffering among the surviving relatives (Varelius, 2012). Legalizing voluntary active euthanasia will also have a number of implications on the patients who do not support the approach. Without proper regulation of voluntary euthanasia, patients who oppose the practice may end up being unwilling victims. This is because the current law that considers voluntary active euthanasia as homicide will be absent, thus losing the cushion currently protecting patients. However, a dilemma is arises from legalizing euthanasia and provided safeguards for the environment to regulate it. For example, those who are against the act will in essence support it by virtue of the support from the elected government. In most cases, euthanasia is meant to promote private interest of individuals and the government. As a result, developing safeguards and controls following the legalization of the process will in essence mean that the government is infringing on the rights of the patients. The disease burdens patients who are required to make decisions on euthanasia and requesting them to make a decision on whether to accept or decline the process will overburden them. If medically normal individuals find it difficult to make decisions on euthanasia, the burden on a patient suffering from a terminal condition cannot be over emphasized (Beauchamp & Walters, 2012). Arguments against non-voluntary active euthanasia Non-voluntary euthanasia involves the decision to end the life of the patient that is made by a third party without considering the desires and will of the patient. In this scenario, the patient may have slip into a coma thus losing his individual ability to make an informed consent on their life and treatment regime. Non-voluntary euthanasia is more controversial than any category of euthanasia and further highlights the need for control on medical application of this process (Rachel, 1998). Non-voluntary euthanasia has three basic tenets that have been used to advance it and these when critically analyzed will demonstrate the need for eliminating euthanasia, whether voluntary or involuntary. First, it assumes that eliminating the life of a patient in a coma does not in any way violate their rights and instead offers them an opportunity for a dignified death. This rest on the fact that the quality of life of patient in a coma is poor and the sanctity of life cannot be used to subject them to continued suffering. In such a situation, this principle argues that life is not worth being protected by the law as it grants the bearer no benefit as harm (Narbekovas & Meilius, 2004). Proponents of non-voluntary active euthanasia argue that the interest of the state outweighs the liberty of an individual who is subjected to an extreme and terminal medical condition. To ease the economic and social burden that such people exerts, their life should be eliminated through euthanasia. Non-voluntary active euthanasia, contrary to the arguments presented by the proponents, affects the patient, the relatives and even the society. In most instances, most patients who are killed through the principle of euthanasia do not support the approach but have no way out to argue in their favor due to the medical situation. Consent from a third party is no valid reason to end the life of a patient due to lack of background information on the relationship between the patient and the third party (Beauchamp & Walters, 2012). In most cases, wives and husbands or even dependents have consented to euthanasia for selfish or revenge reasons. Such situations demonstrate the extent by which this principle violates individual rights to life and further extends lack of respect for morality. Some diagnosis and prognosis are carried out in an environment that affects their accuracy and reliance. Relying on information from diagnosis and prognosis to terminate the life of a patient can lead to the elimination of a life that has the potential to withstand the medical situation it faces (Johannes, 1999). In most situations, the relatives and next of kin of the patient are placed in a serious dilemma by being asked to make a decision of life and death on the life of those they love. In most cases, the third parties are placed in a situation where the decisions they make are weighed not on the positivity of the patient but the burden he brings to the society, the family and the government. Such an argument increases the possibility of the third party consenting to euthanasia based on arguments of others, a decision that may haunt them for a long period. Most spouses and children who have allowed the life of their dependents to be eliminated have lived with a burden of guilt and regret. This affects their lives and leads to the emergence of suicidal thoughts especially on spouses who allowed the life of their wives and husbands to be eliminated (Rachel, 1998). Different perspectives and ethical arguments have been advanced on the issue in support or opposition of its adoption. In his article, Dan Brock described two ethical values and perspectives on voluntary active euthanasia among medical practitioners. The ethical arguments used to enable people make decisions on life sustaining treatment supports the ethical use of euthanasia. The values of individual self-determination or patient autonomy and the principle of wellbeing are applied to the ethical argument for euthanasia. Based on the self-determination or autonomy principle, people are at liberty to make a decision on matters affecting their lives based on their own individual values and the manner in which they conceive life as a whole. Based on this ethical principle, people are at liberty to live based on the individual determination devoid of control from other people. This enhances and strengthens human dignity as it grants them the ability to give direction and value to their own lives (Rachel, 1998). Based on this ethical principle, an individual is at liberty to make a decision of euthanasia. The principle of individual wellbeing also supports the use of euthanasia, as opposed to undergoing the suffering from terminal illnesses. In the event that an individual with unquestionable competency decides to forgo life-supporting treatment, the arguments can be supported by the principle of individual wellbeing. The two principles together with the principle of patient’s autonomy support the ethical arguments in favor of euthanasia in medical practice. The doctrine of double effect is a Christian value that was developed and invoked in the explanation of actions that have serious implications on the health of human beings. According to this doctrine, it is at times permissible to cause such as harm as side effect in the hope of creating results that are more positive. The acts that can be allowed within the doctrine of double effect must be in themselves good and morally acceptable. The health professional in charge of making the act must intend to achieve a positive result in the end and the negative impacts must also outweigh the negative implications in an approach that minimizes harm (Rachel, 1998). The doctrine of double effect has been used in ethical debates on euthanasia with some proponents of assisted suicide arguing that the doctrine is vague and impractical. This doctrine can only be considered relevant if the good result desired is achieved irrespective of the occurrence of the negative impacts. In the treatment of cancer patients who are terminally ill, doctors have continuously administered morphine, a strong pain reliever which, unfortunately, shorten the life of the patients. Conclusion A number of concerns exist that makes euthanasia morally unjustified and cannot therefore be legally approved and accepted within the society. The termination of life leads to the emergence of questions that revolve around the sanctity of life, the slippery slope among other moral questions. Though euthanasia is meant to eliminate the suffering of the patient, it contradicts the reason for developing palliative care for end of life patients. Based on the arguments presented in this paper, active and passive voluntary and voluntary, non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia cannot be accepted within the society as morally upright and justifiable. References Beauchamp, T. & Walters, L. (2012). Contemporary Issues in Bioethics, 8th edition. Belmont, California: Wadsworth. Beauchamp, T.L. & Childress, J.F. (1998). Rachel on active and passive euthanasia, in Contemporary Issues in Bioethics, 5th edition. Belmont: California, Wadsworth. Jochemsen, H. & Keown, J. (1999). Voluntary euthanasia under control? Further empirical evidence from Netherlands. Journal of medical ethics, 25, 16-21. Johannes, J. (1999). Slippery slopes in flat countries- A response. Journal of medical ethics, 25, 22-24. 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. Van Berkum, J. A., Holleman, B., Nieuwland, M., Otten, M., & Murre, J. (2009). Right or Wrong? The Brains 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. Read More