Ethical Issues in Healthcare - Essay Example

ETHICAL ISSUES IN HEALTHCARE By Ethical Issues in Healthcare Introduction Amendment of various constitutions across several states in the world took place in order to facilitate the procurement processes of some of the most contentious services within health sector, such as abortion and euthanasia. However, these still face great resistance from those against such practices, such as the Christians and the human right activists. In 2007, it was apparent that some of these issues, such as abortion, had been assimilated effectively in our contemporary based life. Despite the various legal acceptances of abortion across the world, the issue of abortion remains an ethically contentious subject. On the other hand, arguments for and against euthanasia also create vociferous statements. In some occasions, it encouraged extreme verbal reactions between the various stakeholders. The greatest argument lieson the questions pertaining to rights forindividual autonomy and the way in which the society viewtermination of life after pregnancy or in deep pain. It is essential that all health professionals try tocomprehend the basis of the whole euthanasia debate from the perspective of their own profession and society based views. Moreover, the doctors need to consider pregnant woman or ICU patients who may have had or are considering an abortion or euthanasia to terminate innocent lives. This essay examines some of the key ethical issues concerning contentious health services such as abortion, euthanasia and consent although mainly euthanasia. In brief, the main body contains first paragraphs presenting the arguments in support of the hypothesis and the second against argument on the hypothesis. Our main hypothesis involves the argument for or against the contentious health issues such as abortion, consent or euthanasia. In the process, the essayist looks into the factors involved, the guidance for dealing with specified ethical issue, evaluation of euthanasia based on different moral and ethical arguments. Argument for contentious health issue; Euthanasia Euthanasia refers to an instance where patients who have a terminal illnesses, such as cancer, HIV/AIDs or diabetes, may opt to propose be given some drugs for terminating life. A nurse or any medical practitioner usually facilitates this. Interestingly, those who have been found to request for it end up being found that they were misdiagnosis and therefore wrongly advised to opt for the euthanasia. Essentially, Euthanasia goes against the Hippocratic based oath which is taken by medical practitioner in support of prolonging life. This stems from what Greek great Philosopher Hippocrates (460-370 BCE) said that, he will not prescribe any deadly drug to appease someone nor give any advice that may cause death. The nurses see it unethical unless ordered by the patient because they are there to protect and safe life. The Euthanasia is essentially scripted on Terminally Ill Act of the constitution. Some of the arguments rose for the support of euthanasia includes; First, it has been argued that people have a right to decide when they want to die and therefore nobody should prevent them from using euthanasia. They are feeling a lot of pain and subjecting their loved ones into it and therefore, if they decide or request for their life to be terminated, so be it. According to Stuart Mill, an architect’s for democratic doctrine the only purpose in which power can be exercised against an individual is when they are harming others but not themselves (Baird& Rosenbaum, 2009). Therefore, if a person request his life terminated through writing, then this is not a sufficient warrant for him to be charged. According to him, democratic based society can make or amend laws to prohibit murder, prostitution and robbery but should not make some laws that prohibit sex before marriage, freedom of religion or voluntary euthanasia. This is because of the patients who desire euthanasia for their own good and not physically harming any other person. He therefore requested those against it to substantiate their arguments why they are opposed to it and more so in a democratic society. Secondly, he revealed that to deny people the right to live their lives as they wish implies that each individual does not know what his or her own rights is. This was based on the concept of individualism, a fundamental factor within a democratic based political theory. The theory reveals that individuals should be given rights to own their life and nobody should question them on how they are managing personal life just like assets. In essence, all of us are driven to develop and satisfy own rights. He revealed that right for our own life is not an issue vested only to those who are mentally fit but also the medically ill people such as patients with dementia or clinical depression can decide to make informed decision about voluntary based euthanasia. He compared situations where some individuals such as young men can decide to participate in dangerous sports or a woman performs an abortion in their twenties and no body questions the illegality. So it should apply to those suffering from terminal illness or seventy aged women and men losing the legal control of their bodies. Another argument was that it is wrong to keep any person alive for longer period than they are meant to be. This means that if they request to rest then let it be and therefore it should not be infringed. Voluntary based euthanasia is morally just because it is voluntary and therefore all patients insisting on it know what they are going through mentally and physically. This will even give them the ability to die in dignity rather than suffering until the last minute of their breath. Every person wants to die in a dignified manner where he is in a position to avoid subjecting their relatives into physical and mental torture. Therefore, Euthanasia should be advocated for (Yount, 2002). This argument was supported by biblical verses such as where Jesus said that we do unto others as you would have them do to you. If you were suffering or in pain you may want your life to end and the pain to stop then nobody should block it. In addition to that relatives do not have to see their loved ones in pain or agony for instance a mother with under- eighteen years old children may not want to subject her young family to endless pain. This means that all finance available for education and family support go to the hospitalization bill basket. This may trigger the patient with medical based terminal illness such as cancer to propose for euthanasia and therefore cut short expenses. The family will cry and wail for a week of funeral but they will spend the saved income to educate and support themselves. Therefore, euthanasia should be braced in specified case scenario (Gorsuch, 2006). However, a lot needs to be done on the subject matter because the choice of how an individual should die is one of the most essential personal based decisions that he or she should make wisely. However, to be denied the right in making this decision is blight within our modern democracy. A popular case scenario was where Sue Rodriguez, a Canadian patient died in 1994 from the Lou Gehrig’s disease. Before her death, Sue decided to go to the Supreme Court after he had been denied the right to undergo Euthanasia. She questioned; “if she cannot give consent to her own death, then whose body is it?” Argument against contentious health issue; Euthanasia Human right activists and Christians have severally opposed the ‘slippery slope’ argument about the use of Euthanasia. They have varied reasons why such act should not be performed to terminate patients’ life. Those opposed to the health issue reveals that Doctors diagnosis might be wrong. We will never know. This will mean that the patient may opt for euthanasia when in real sense they are going to be healed. Therefore, euthanasia should not be legalized because it cost life for nothing. Essentially, the patient will go through the pain and eventually get healed hence euthanasia is irrelevant. Secondly, God made man in his own image as indicated in the Genesis 1:27.Christian believes that human life is a sacred gift from God and therefore no person should take initiative to kill. Christians have been in forefront to ensure that euthanasia is not legalized or applied within the medical field. They believe that only God has a right to terminate life because he is the creator and hence no Euthanasia. Third, it is against the 10 Commandment and especially the one saying that do not kill. Christians believe in the Sanctity of Life, so why use a form of suicide to terminate life. They revealed that those who kill others will one time face penalty. They encourage doctors to negotiate with patients who decide to terminate own life. Moreover, Jesus suffered on the cross and he did not cut short his life after suffering therefore it’s not upon us to terminate our life. We are required to emulate Jesus Christ as our savior and leader in spiritual life. In addition to that, Doctors are against euthanasia because their job is to try to save and protect it. They have taken an oath to ensure that they protect individual’s life. Therefore,the same individuals should not proceed to request for termination of life regardless of the disease they are suffering from. The doctors should be like Jesus who healed deadliest diseases without talking about euthanasia. Moreover, Christians call upon the doctors to refer such patients to their Christian hospital where the patients will be taken care of without euthanasia and eventually die peacefully if it is God’s will (Keown, 2002). Lastly, it has been argued that euthanasia can trigger a lot of manipulation especially in case of elderly relatives can be coerced into opting for Euthanasia because they fall under burden category of the family. Some relatives may force such elderly people to take euthanasia so that they can inherit wealth. Glover raised this argument in 1977 when he felt that euthanasia should not be legalized because it is evil. He also felt that euthanasia can be used by certain materialistic parties to devalue life or even create a second based category of disabled and sick people. Conclusion From the above arguments we can conclude that euthanasia should be critically discussed so as to know how it morally or ethically influence the life of the ill people, Christians, doctors ,relatives of the sick , elderly people or even the government agencies. The lawmakers are part of the protagonist of the health issue while on the other hand Christians are antagonist. However, it is essential to understand how euthanasia will influence the whole society because we live by society not by law. Christian and other human rights activists should not be ignored neither should they ignore the proposer of the health issue. References Baird, R. M., & Rosenbaum, S. E. (2009).Euthanasia: The moral issues. Buffalo, N.Y: Prometheus Books. Gorsuch, N. M. (2006). The future of assisted suicide and euthanasia. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. Yount, L. (2002). Euthanasia. San Diego, Calif: Greenhaven Press. Keown, J. (2002). Euthanasia, ethics, and public policy: An argument against legalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More