The UK Medical Law - the Ethical Dilemma of Euthanasia - Research Paper Example

UK Medical Law: The Ethical Dilemma of Euthanasia Abstract This research focuses on the idea of Euthanasia in the UK and Britain. Although some view this as a compassionate means of ending a life that is suffering, others state that it is unethical and inappropriate. The fact that this research defines is in regards to the whole concept of Euthanasia being unethical and illegally permissible in medical care. Those who are found to be engaged in the care of a patient that is definitively undertaken to end that life are actually committing criminal acts, according to the many legal laws surrounding the field of medicine in the UK. Regardless of the laws there are cases that still take place with this one objective and those that are directly involved claim that their actions were never meant in any adverse means but rather where carried out to gain peace and comfort for that of their patient. There are some cases that will be identified and included in this research to fully discuss the true meaning in behind what is considered legally and illegally permissible in medical cases where the patient is terminally ill. Also an emphasis is given as to when medical treatment can be legally withdrawn due to the futility of the medical illness. In the conclusion this research points out that although there are legal restraints preventing doctors to engage in treatments that result in the patients’ life being taken, there are numerous ethical considerations that have to be taken into account as well. Within cases like these, nothing is ever easy, especially when it involves someone who is terminally ill and has no hope of survival. UK Medical Law: The Ethical Dilemma of Euthanasia Euthanasia has been in heated debate for a good while now within the UK. However, there have been numerous changes taking place within it’s concept but one must ask do these changes go along with the old idea that insinuates any doctors or family members who engage in treatment regimens that are ultimately meant for ending the patients life should still be held legally liable in a court of law and from there face criminal charges from prosecution? Unfortunately, within the UK there are still legal grounds that are enforced in regards to anyone who ends another’s life regardless of whether it was for a medical reason or whether the individual wanted assistance in ending their life period. It is not legally permissible or ethical to carry out medical cases such as these but it is being done anyway. However, those who want to die will search for any means possible such as with cases where patients have traveled to Switzerland to have doctors there perform assisted suicides or euthanasia procedures because it is legal in that country (Spinney 2005). The point is that no one wants to have to suffer unbearable and excruciating agony with an illness that has no hope of a cure or adequate treatment program available. In this regard the UK needs to realize that its citizens deserve to have the right to die in a dignified fashion when they deem it is appropriate, not when the government states it is logical. In this case there is no fallible reason found in the statement that medical treatment should be legally impermissible if it is being carried out in correlation with the patients’ right to die. One specific case that gives emphases on how patients are considering the country of Switzerland as an option for allowing them to have the right to decide when to end their life is in regards to Alayne Buckley and her disease of amyotrophic sclerosis (Spinney 2005). There is no cure for this disease and it results in severe pain throughout the body for the patient. Mrs. Buckley feels that hers is a medical necessity because in her case there is no way to ease her pain and prevent her loved ones from having to suffer through such a horrific illness alongside of her if she remains in the UK. This case refutes the fact that Euthanasia should be legally permissible as it shows that this patient will lose all her rights if she remains within the country and this is something that she does not want to occur. Another exemplary case that refutes the discussed statement is in regards to the case of the twins who were conjoined. By removing one of the twins from the other it was found that the other twin would die but based on medical necessity, there were grounds to perform the surgery (Simester & Sullivan 2002). Furthermore, medical diagnosis pointed to the fact that without the surgical procedure both twins would surely die so it was a situation of where one life would have to be lost in order to save the other, which of course is a matter of ethics and creates a debate on both sides of the equation. Ultimately what this case pointed out is there are times where regardless of what the law says, Euthanasia becomes an obligatory procedure to save the life of the patient. In the twins case there was no way to sustain both of their lives and the Court of Appeals recognized this dilemma and were responsible for authorizing the approval of terminating one of the twins lives in order to ensure the life of the other. Also, the law showed that this case was not necessarily the same as other cases that had involved ending life. Due to the complications with the sharing of the blood between the twins, what officials stated would lead to the death of M was a lack of blood in the body due to the separation, so it was rather a medical omission rather than an actual act of killing the other twin (Simester & Sullivan 2002). In this regard, it was the ultimate reason for allowing the surgery to be carried out because again it was of a medical necessity to do so. This concretes the fact that any case that can show a medical necessity for ending life would then be legally acceptable. However, this can be a hard theory to prove and often times in most cases it can fall to the wayside because much of the evidence to prove it is considered irrelevant in the courts unless the stated evidence can be proven without a doubt that it is going to hinder that life in question, such as in the case of the conjoined twins. Another point that must be looked at is in regard to medical futility and when medical treatment can be legally withdrawn without a risk of facing criminal charges. Of course, if no medical treatment is going to change the course of a patients life expectancy due to a terminal illness, handicap, or genetic abnormality, and they are otherwise unaware of their surroundings and in the final states of the illness, or left with no recourse for a normalcy in life, then of course it can be assumed that there would be no sense in continuing any form of medical treatment besides to use it to alleviate any form of pain that might be obvious to the medical providers through the patients actions. There are similar thoughts in the treatment of severely handicapped children with severe medical illnesses which can be found in the journal notes by Tovey (1991-2003). An example of this is in a case where a baby had Goldenhar’s Syndrome preventing her from breathing properly. This is a case in which the decision was basically made by the counts to allow for continued treatment and even exploratory surgery to try and decipher what the source of the problem was for the infant. This was done because there was hope for a good life expectancy of the child but in other cases the circumstances are drastically different (Tovey 1991-2003). Quite often medical establishments will omit treatment for a child or neonate that has no hope of survival because it is deemed futile to try anyway when it appears that death is the imminent outcome of the patient. However, there is never a surefire way of knowing for a complete certainty whether the child or baby would live or die anything could happen. Nevertheless, this form of power seems to have been placed into the hands of the medical doctors and in many ways it simply is not fair to the life being decided and that weighs in the balance. For further emphasis into this dilemma an article by Colins (1997) showed that due to the withdrawal of medical treatment in one hospital neonatal intensive care unit, 41 babies died due to not receiving proper medical care. Of course this was stated that further treatment would have been futile because a good percentage of the babies would not have lived anyway and the ones that would have would have had a low quality of life. However, the point is what gives a doctor the right to decide when a baby should live and die, and if Euthanasia is considered to be legally impermissible how can the majority of these forms of cases seem ok legally (Colins 1997). The differences in these cases and adult Euthanasia cases are based on the fact that doctors say some of these babies and children could not function on their own without life support services and to continue providing them was only extending life that otherwise would not survive on it’s own. Also, doctors state that some babies have such severe abnormalities that their lives would be severely impaired regardless of what form of medical treatment that they would be provided so the medical specialists deem it futile to continue any form of medical intervention in these types of cases. However, to refute the statement that this should be considered legally impermissible behavior is the fact that these babies nor children can’t speak for themselves and should be allowed the chance to survive due to the sheer ethics of the situation. Adults are given a choice and babies should have a voice to speak for themselves as well in order to have a choice over life and death also. Also, doctors try to insinuate that these various cases where medical intervention is not given is much like a late abortion in many cases, such is how they try to legalize the situation but in actuality there is no justification in classifying taking a babies life that has already been born in this manner (Tovey 1991-2003). The decisions to continue treatment should be left up to the parents as in many of the cases in the notes by Tovey (1991-2003) define. If that can’t be the case then it should be a courts decision not a doctor in a hospital because to many this is like the medical profession being representative of a God and it is not approved of in society. In conclusion this research has pointed out that the concept of Euthanasia is changing and it will continue to do so. Many parts of the UK are starting to adapt to the idea and implement different laws to allow for it in certain cases. Furthermore, if the UK can not guarantee that patients’ rights can be honored then these people have been found to simply leave the country to go to another where their rights will be upheld. Either way the idea of Euthanasia needs to become legally permissible in order to guarantee the dignity and wishes of the patient. In regards to the issues of medical futility and ending life, this research has proven that these are situations where ultimately the decision should be up to the parents, not a doctor and not wholly the courts either. All evidence needs to be considered and a proper outcome given to show what to expect before simply saying that the continuing treatment would be futile. Both of these are very sketchy ideas and hard to come to terms with but it is found that if parents of disabled, and adult individuals that have serious diseases are given the power to choose for themselves then there will be an equal balance between the law and the medical aspect of society. References Colins, John. (1997, 1 January). Death in the Intensive Care Nursery: Physician Practice of Withdrawing and Withholding Life-Support. Pediatrics Journal, 1. Simester, & Sullivan. (2002, 14 October). Medical Necessity and Murder. Hart Publishing: Criminal Law Journal, 334. Spinney, Laura. (2005, 23 April). Last Rights: The Battle for a Dignified Death. New Scientist Magazine, 46. Tovey, Gwyn. (1991-2003). Medical Futility: Selective Non-Treatment of Severely Handicapped Neonates and Young Children. Medical Law Journal, 17: 1-9. Read More