Human Euthanasia is Unethical - Essay Example

Human Euthanasia is Unethical Does anyone have the right to end something that is not his own Who decides how long one should live or not In the last few decades, many nations have had to deal with dilemmas associated with unbearable suffering. As every person in entitled to live his life, this right to life is asserted in a number of international human rights instruments. Still the issue of euthanasia is far from over. Some of the instruments that prohibit the unlawful taking of life include the American Convention on Human Rights (1969), the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom (1950), the United Nations Charter (1945), and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948). All of them are for the protection of life. In the world of medicine, the World Medical Association (WMA, 2002) made its point well on euthanasia. The policy adopted by the 38th WMA Assembly, in Madrid, Spain, October 1987, states: "Euthanasia, that is the act of deliberately ending the life of a patient, even at the patient's own request or at the request of close relatives, is unethical. This does not prevent the physician from respecting the desire of a patient to allow the natural process of death to follow its course in the terminal phase of sickness." After five years, WMA came out with a statement on Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) which stated that PAS is unethical and therefore something to be abhorred: "Physicians-assisted suicide, like euthanasia, is unethical and must be condemned by the medical profession. Where the assistance of the physician is intentionally and deliberately directed at enabling an individual to end his or her own life, the physician acts unethically. However the right to decline medical treatment is a basic right of the patient and the physician does not act unethically even if respecting such a wish results in the death of the patient." As one of the most contentious issues of our time, "euthanasia" (herein clarified as human) is understood as "good death." According to Bamgbose (2004), there are many angles in looking at this issue as euthanasia has been deliberated in a many-sided debate from different groups. On one side are the medical practitioners ready to assist with their expertise; on another are the legal practitioners who interpret the law; on still another are those in the judicial arm of government who have to make authoritative decisions. There are yet the two groups where on one side are the terminally ill who look for assistance to die with dignity, and then on the other side are the family members much tormented with anguish. My position. The debate on euthanasia is on whether a person may decide to have his or her life terminated for his or her own benefit (Bamgbose, 2004). The burden appears to lie on the one who has a life to reckon with. Does a person own his own life such that he can decide how long he should live or not As defined by euthanasia.com (http://www.euthanasia.com/index.html), euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. Accordingly, the key word here is "intentional" so that if death is not intended, it is not an act of euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia therefore refers to when the person who is killed has requested to be killed. Accordingly, there is no euthanasia unless the death is intentionally caused by what was done or not done (Website: euthanasia.com). Zeroing in on this angle, this paper takes on the position that a person's decision to terminate his or her life is unethical. In other words, the WMA's belief that euthanasia is unethical is well taken. Euthanasia or good death or mercy killing may take on other meanings like suicide or physician-assisted suicide (PAS) depending on the circumstance. All of them, however, amount to euthanasia. For either argument for and against euthanasia, this paper will endeavor to counter or concur with the contentions accordingly The word euthanasia originated from an amalgam of two Greek words: eu meaning good and thanatos meaning death. It is believed that given the advances of modern medicine, it is possible to maintain biological life far beyond the point at which death would naturally occur (Bamgbose, 2004). Different countries, different perspectives. The issue of euthanasia is complicated in that different countries try to import solutions from other countries (Bamgbose, 2004). Three places are identified as having legalized euthanasia or assisted suicide: Netherlands, Belgium, and Oregon (World Map, 2008). For a focused discussion, this paper will only tackle those of the United States. As it is, most states in the United States have not recognized euthanasia (Bamgbose, 2004). In Michigan, Dr. Jack Kevorkian was convicted for second-degree murder for injecting a controlled substance into a patient. This person had asked for his assistance to a bearable death (Robinson, 2000). Helping another to commit suicide, however, is a criminal act under the American Model Penal Code (Article 210:5) as described in Broady, Acker & Logan (2001). The State of Oregon has legalized euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide or PAS (World map, 2008). PAS is lawful when done for someone in agonizing pain. By virtue of the Death With Dignity Act of 1997 ("The Oregon," 2008), the patient may ask a physician to prescribe drugs to end life. However, for euthanasia to be consummated, it is expected that the drugs must be taken by the patient (Bamgbose, 2004). Except for Oregon, euthanasia is equated to murder in the United States of America. In the trial of Dr. Adams for murder (R. v. Adams, 1957), Judge Devlin stated that it did not make any difference if Mrs. Morrell's death was inevitable and that her days were numbered. If her life were cut short by weeks or months, it was just as much a murder as if her life were cut short by years (Bamgbose, 2004). For over 7 centuries, the Anglo American common law tradition has punished or otherwise disapproved of both suicide and assisting suicide ("History of," 2008). Arguments for euthanasia. Looking at euthanasia from the side of those who request for it, the general reasons are as follows, followed by my arguments countering these reasons (mostly gleaned from website: euthanasia.com): 1) Euthanasia provides a way to relieve extreme pain. The case for euthanasia or assisted-suicide is proportionally weakened as these days, advances are constantly being made in the treatment of pain. Nearly all pain can be eliminated and - in those rare cases where it can't be eliminated - it can still be reduced significantly if proper treatment is provided. Killing is not the answer to the scandal that nationally and internationally, so many people do not get enough pain control (Website: euthanasia.com). 2) The patient demands right to commit suicide. What kind of right and who is to give that If there ever is a right involved in euthanasia, that right may not belong to the person who is killed, but to the person who does the killing. In other words, euthanasia is not about the right to die. It's about the right to kill (Website: euthanasia.com). If closely analyzed, euthanasia is not really about giving rights to the person who dies but, instead, is about changing the law and public policy so that doctors, relatives and others can directly and intentionally end another person's life (Website: euthanasia.com). As an act, euthanasia is not a private one, but involves at least two people - one seeking to be relieved from pain to death, and another one facilitating that death. This is very much of a public concern since it can lead to tremendous abuse, exploitation and erosion of care for the most vulnerable people. 3) Staying alive should not be forced. Right, and neither the law nor medical ethics requires that "everything be done" to keep a person alive. Insistence, against the patient's wishes, that death be postponed by every means available is against the law and practice. It would also be cruel and inhumane. There comes a time when continued attempts to cure are not compassionate, wise, or medically sound (Website: euthanasia.com). But neither should snuffing out the life of one - either as consenter or facilitator. Smith (2006) referred to "a duty to die" that is more likely when continuing to live will impose significant burdens like emotional burdens, extensive care-giving, destruction of life plans, and financial hardship on family and loved ones. According to her - This is the fundamental insight underlying a duty to die. A duty to die becomes greater as you grow older. As we age, we will be giving up less by giving up our lives . . . To have reached the age of say, seventy-five or eighty years without being ready to die is itself a moral failing, the sign of a life out of touch with life's basic realities. However, is Smith correct It is like she is recommending the usefulness of euthanasia in one's twilight years so as not to be a burden to society. This is the time, rather, where hospice, including in-home hospice care, can be of such help. That is the time when all efforts should be placed on making the patient's remaining time comfortable. Then, all interventions should be directed to alleviating pain and other symptoms as well as to the provision of emotional and spiritual support for both the patient and the patient's loved ones. This is certainly not the time for euthanasia to short-cut responsibilities. Arguments against euthanasia. Those who think euthanasia is unethical argue in favor of a 'good death' just like those who are for it. According to them, this good death should be attained by ensuring the maximum degree of comfort, care and adequate pain control (McInerney & Seibold, 1995). This is just like my counter argument with Smith (2006). The primary care objective should not consist of ending life, but of alleviating discomfort (Matzo, 2001). The following are the reasons why euthanasia should be opposed: 1) It is morally wrong. Within the euthanasia movement is the belief that we own our bodies, and thus, determining the time, manner, and method of our own deaths, for whatever reason, is a basic human right (Smith, 2006). Euthanasia is morally wrong according to religious beliefs, medical ethics, the sanctity of life or the intrinsic value of nature and its purposefulness. No one has the right to decide anyone's time of death, be it his own (Kuuppeloma, 2001 and Matzo & Schwarz, 2001). Death is a struggle, inherent in life, which must be fought to the very end (Young & Ogden, 2000). As it is, life is in God's hands and hastening death is equivalent to murder. Euthanasia then is not another case of freedom of choice. As physicians are supposed to save lives, any physician-assisted suicide (PAS) case therefore runs conflict with the basic role of medical practitioners. The Hippocratic Oath says, "I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel." 2) There is guilt and strain for all. Euthanasia, being immediate and certain of death is disturbing to the conscience. Worse, euthanasia can quickly acquire the features of a business transaction because many things need to be arranged, explained and signed. This impression is strengthened by the threatening supervision of the judicial authorities. ("The AM." Tonight at 8 o'clock, 1997). There may come a time when it is considered a burden to continue sustaining the life of a patient who, whether by reason of severe pains would be better off dead, whereas euthanasia would free up medical funds to help other people. Financial considerations certainly play a part in end-of-life decision making, with euthanasia being regarded as a less expensive alternative to palliative care. In such a case, there is risk of economic pressure on the dying patient (Matzo & Schwarz, 2001; Young & Ogden, 2000). Because of this, euthanasia makes ill people very vulnerable and may involve relatives' pressure to end patients' lives (McInerney & Seibold, 1995). There may be the risk of wrongful decisions in euthanasia, which might cause strain on family members and even medical staff who might be involved in a situation they have not chosen. This practice puts an unreasonable burden on the one making the decision, and this includes the family, the staff and the person performing the killing act (Website: euthanasia.com). 3) There is potential for abuse. If euthanasia were permitted, there would be a tendency for the development of a gradual change. Eventually there might be a shift in society's norms and attitudes to the severely ill, which is also known as the 'slippery slope argument'. This may damage the faith in, and credibility of, the healthcare system (Kuuppeloma, 2000, and Young & Ogden, 2000). In McInerney & Seibold's (1995) study, two nurses were anxious that a euthanasia law would open up a Pandora's Box and ultimately escalate to performing euthanasia without patients having requested it. Terri Mauro (2008), for example asked, who decides when there's no hope With such a question, the next question may eventually lead to deciding who should live and who should not. What about the disabled In Nazi Germany, disability was a genocidal marker as described by Dr. Mark Mostert (2002) of Regent University in an article he wrote. Titled "Useless Eaters," the article referred to people with physical, emotional, and intellectual disabilities who were mass murdered prior to and during the early years of World War II. According to Mostert (2002) - The idea of societies disposing of people with disabilities was hardly new at the dawn of the 20th century. There is ample evidence that both medical and legal debates across Europe, including in Germany in the 19th century, included fatal solutions for inmates of asylums and others with physical, emotional, and intellectual disabilities. These historical attitudes gathered momentum, however, in the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. 4) Not necessarily a true wish. The patient's wish for euthanasia is not necessarily a true wish to die (Website: euthanasia.com). It might be influenced by society's norms, relatives' attitudes or financial problems. Furthermore, it might not, on a deeper psychological level, be a wish to die, but a cry for help and attention. In this regard, it should be expert palliative care that can make a patient's final days more bearable that is the concern (Young & Ogden, 2000) instead of euthanasia. Research has shown that the experience of pain and suffering is the reason why people want to die. However, when those symptoms are controlled, most patients would want to live (Verpoort, et al. (2004). Conclusion Human euthanasia is unethical by all counts. It is morally wrong. There is potential for abuse if it be legitimized. There is guilt and strain attached to those supposed to perform euthanasia. With euthanasia, there is also a risk of wrongful decisions. Moreover, the patient may not necessarily wish for euthanasia if conditions can be controlled. Should caring for the sick be viewed as a financial burden that killing may be the answer Should one be better off dead so that medical funds will be able to help others The basic question that remains hanging still is whether anyone has the right to end something that is not his own. Clearly, who decides is not a question. The life of a steward is not anyone's to destroy - nor should anyone assist him in doing so. References "American Convention on Human Rights." (Signed at the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, San Josi, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969). Retrieved Jun2 2 34, 2008 from http://www.hrcr.org/docs/American_Convention/oashr.html "Charter of the United Nations." United Nations Homepage, 2008. Retrieved June 2, 1008, from http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ "European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms." Retrieved June 1, 2008, from http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/328 "Euthanasia Definitions." Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http://www.euthanasia.com/definitions.html. "History of Euthanasia." 14th through 20th Century English Common Law (Excerpt is from the U. S. Supreme Court ruling in the 1997. Washington v. Glucksberg - opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist.). Retrieved June 4, 2008, from http://www.euthanasia.com/historyeuthanasia.html "Reasons for Euthanasia." Retrieved June 3, 2008, from http://www.euthanasia.com/reasonsforeuthanasia.html "The AM." 'Vanavond om 8 uur . . . ' Verpleegkundige dilemma's bij euthanasie en andere beslissingen rond het levenseinde. [Tonight at 8 o'clock . . . Nursing dilemmas in euthanasia and other decisions at the end of life.] Houten: Bohn Staeu Van Loghum, 1997. "The Oregon Death with Dignity Law." Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http://www.deathwithdignity.org/historyfacts/ "The World Medical Association Resolution on euthanasia." WMA Policy. Adopted by the WMA General Assembly, Washington 2002. May 2001 20.3/2001. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from http://www.wma.net/e/policy/e13b.htm "Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights. Retrieved June 3, 2008, from http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm Bamgbose, O. Euthanasia: Another Face of Murder. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 2004; 48; 111. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X03256662 Broady, D. C., Acker, J. R., & Logan, W. A. (2001). America model penal code: Article 210:5. Criminal law (pp. 595-622). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen. Have, H A M J ten. Euthanasia: moral paradoxes. Palliative Medicine, Vol. 15, No. 6, 505-511 (2001). DOI: 10.1191/026921601682554003. 2001 SAGE Publications Kuuppelomaki, M. Attitude of cancer patients, their family members and health professionals toward active euthanasia. Eur J Cancer Care 2000; 9: 16/21. Matzo, L.M., & Schwarz, K.J. In their own words: oncology nurses respond to patient requests for assisted suicide and euthanasia. J Appl Nurs Research 2001; 14: 64/71. Mauro, T. "Who Decides There's No Hope: Euthanasia andDisabilities." Website: About.com. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http://specialchildren.about.com/od/medicalissues/i/euthanasia.htm McInerney, F., & Seibold C. Nurses' definitions of and attitudes towards euthanasia. J Adv Nurs 1995; 22: 171/82. Mostert, Mark P. "Useless Eaters: Disability as a genocidal marker in Nazi Germany." The Journal of Special Education. Vol. 36. No. 3. 2002. Pp 155-168. Retrieved June 4, 2008, from http://www.regent.edu/acad/schedu/uselesseaters/text/2743414051_1.pdf Robinson, B. A. (2000, November 29). Physician assisted suicide outside the U.S. Available from www.religioustolerance.org/euth.wld.htm Smith. W.J. Right to Die Movement is Really About Euthanasia, Not Compassion. Lifenews.com. May 1, 2006. Retrieved June 4, 2008, from http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.phpcommand=view&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20Article&id=3454 Verpoort, C., Gastmans, C., De Bal, N. & de Casterl, B.D. Nurses' Attitudes to Euthanasia: a review of the literature. Nursing Ethics, Vol. 11, No. 4, 349-365 (2004). DOI: 10.1191/0969733004ne708oa World Map. Places in the World Where Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide are Legal. Retrieved June 3, 2008, from http://www.euthanasia.com/euthanasiamap.html Young, M.G. & Ogden, R.D. The role of nurses in AIDS care regarding voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide: a call for further dialogue. J Adv Nurs 2000; 31: 513/19. Read More