Is Mercy Killing Illegal or Immoral - Research Proposal Example

EUTHANASIA Contents Introduction 3 Research problem 4 Research question and variables 5 Importance and benefits of the research 5 Research objectives 6 Literature review 6 Research design 8 Sampling design 8 Data collection methodology 9 Expected results 9 Conclusion 9 Reference 11 Introduction The term euthanasia was inferred from the Greek words "eu" and "thanatos" which implies "good death" or "easy death". It is likewise known as Mercy Killing. Euthanasia actually means putting an individual to effortless death particularly in the event of serious enduring or when life gets to be purposeless as a consequence of mental or physical handicap (Campaign for Dignity in Dying, n.d.). The reason for life is to be cheerful and to make others euphoric if conceivable, to develop old elegantly and to kick the bucket with poise. So the inquiry of euthanasia emerges on three events- 1. At the start of life (at conception) 2. At the closure of regular life (terminal stage) and 3. When an individual is extremely disabled as an aftereffect of mind harm (unforeseen incident) At Birth If there should be an occurrence of physically and rationally debilitated babies Decision rests on the parents or on the specialists supported by the law that everyone must follow The choice ought to be dependent upon: - personal satisfaction the kid can want and its subsequent effect on the parents, social order and the assets of the State and likewise care of the tyke after demise of the parents. At terminal stage The dying cognizant patient can give his own assent or choice as to proceed or not the progressing treatment in the event if he wishes to. No ethical commitment on specialists to protect life at any expense (Basri, 2012). Unforeseen mishap The point when an individual is intensely debilitated as a consequence of brain damage either because of viciousness, natural causes or poisoning where the cerebrum experiences hypoxic brain damage from which it cant recoup independent of the medicine given his life could be SUSTAINED by counterfeit means yet just IN A STATE OF SUSPENDED Movement. This offers ascent to the perplexity if the medication is dragging out LIFE or DEATH!! In such cases he may be permitted to pass on in solace and with poise (Murkey and Singh, n.d.). Research problem Mercy Killing and doctor aided suicide is a debatable point in the public arena and around medicinal experts in general. A few specialists feel that the practice goes against the professions do no harm principle. Others assert that extending the life of somebody who wishes to depart their life is a merciless encroachment on human rights. A standout amongst the most renowned doctor-assisted suicide campaigner was American pathologist Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who showed up for having unlawfully aiding in the bereavement of more than hundred patients in the United States and on this basis he was charged second-degree killing in the late 90s (BBC News, 1999). During 2007, he was freed from jail after providing his consent towards not furnishing guidance on committing suicide to any other person, after which he showed up at different schools and on television chat shows to advertise his conviction and hypotheses in the vicinity of a patients entitlement to pass on. He passed away in 2011. Research question and variables This paper will address the research question, “Is mercy killing illegal or immoral?” Thus the hypothesis for the study states that mercy killing is illegal and unethical practice. The independent variables in this study will incorporate gender, nations, race, socio-demographic components, and religious convictions. The dependent variables are the morals and lawfulness behind mercy killing. Importance and benefits of the research The significance of life and the purpose of death have been clearly identified throughout the present study. Life appears to be beautiful to a person until he/she is healthy. The moment a person falls ill and suffers from several diseases, it becomes hard for them and their family to lead a happy life. In the case of a prolonged illness, the family of the patient and the patient himself/herself suffers a lot since the family spends a good amount of money for the recovery of the person and the patient bears a good amount of treatment pains with the hope to recover soon. But these activities move towards an aimless direction until the death of the patient. Thus death in such cases seems to be a precious thing since it brings relief for both the patient and his/her family (Debate.org, n.d.). Thus Mercy Killing can be considered a good way out in such cases where natural death is delayed, however several country’s legal system consider Mercy Killing to be illegal and against the principles of the healthcare profession. The present study aims at establishing the ethical and legal perceptions of mercy killing across the globe that will put forth several research and their findings. These research results would help us to know the different perceptions of the different researchers and will prove to be helpful for the medical practitioners as the research would contain both the positive and negative sides of euthanasia. Research objectives The current study will address the research question that has been put forward in the previous section that seeks to propose the moral and legal perceptions of mercy killing throughout the world. Thus the objective of the research is to establish the legal and moral side associated with mercy killing. Literature review Study by Loria, ET. al. (2013) states that the lawful position of Physician-assisted death (PAD) involves the active conclusion of a life at the sole request of the patient with the objective of providing relief from suffering and pain and in Mexico it comes under the umbrella of the legislative bodies. The growing concern towards this domain has tripled from a percentage of 5.4 during 1990 to a percentage of 15.3 during 2003 and is still rising. Out of 239 participants, 50 percent stated that they supported the practice of PAD whereas 58 percent supported the arrangement of Therapy Withdrawal (TW). According to the research team, these differences are based on medical experience and age of the participant. Age might be considered as a factor acting as a substitute for developing social worth linked with a rising recognition of euthanasia by the younger people. While considering the contributions by Dr. Kevorkian in the field of mercy killing it can be stated that a lot of people in the healthcare profession were and are doubtful about Kevorkians style of physician-assisted deaths back in the 1990s (Catalano, 2011). Patients arriving at Michigan one day, and being discovered dead the following day, does not match with the healthcare industry’s common mission of providing cautious and caring medical assistance to the patients. Political campaigners in the right-to-die program during the 1990s feared the possibility that Kevorkian may appear throughout their movements since he was considered as a negative personality among the general public. However Dr. Kevorkian was not the first individual to introduce the concept of euthanasia. The Hemlock Society was at that point ten years of age with 20,000 members before Kevorkian surfaced openly in 1990. The first Living Will law was passed in 1976 by California. Surely Dr. Kevorkian is to be thanked for helping practically 130 individuals to die and get relief from their suffering who clearly needed his support in completing so. At the same time he might not move out of his neighborhood district in this manner the individuals who couldnt venture out to him continued enduring. Likewise, when he had not tested the law implementation on TV to indict him then he could have kept on helping individuals rather than grieving in prison (Humphry, 2007). On July 18, 2006 Dr. Anna Pou, a surgeon and respected medical school educator, and two medical caretakers, Cheri A. Landry and Lori L. Budo were arrested on suspicion of second degree murder. Charles C. Foti, the Louisiana Attorney General, blamed them for utilizing deadly infusions to kill four elderly patients at Memorial Medical Center in New Orleans in the after effects of storm Katrina. The case has been turned over to the Orleans Parish District Attorney, who will display it to a grand jury before choosing whether to bring the accusations. Thirty-four patients passed on at Memorial Medical Center as an aftereffect of sea tempest Katrina and this has prompted powerful theory about how some of them demised. As per daily paper accounts a significant number of the patients were emptied from the healing center, only the sickest were left behind. “The four victims were actually patients of LifeCare Hospital, an intensive-care unit that leased space from Memorial Hospital and had a separate staff. With chaotic evacuations taking place, many by boat, Dr. Pou and a Memorial Hospital official who has not been charged by Mr. Foti told witnesses that the LifeCare patients ‘were probably not going to survive,’ according to the affidavit released from the office of Attorney General Foti.” At the present time nobody has been charged in the investigation. Examiners have subpoenaed more than 70 witnesses and are inspecting volumes of confirmation. Legal advisors for the three denounced health care experts contend that, “the facts will reveal heroic efforts by the physician and the staff in a desperate situation” (Clark, 2006). Research design The qualitative study has been applied as a blend of mixed empirical-analytical framework. The study will stand up in comparison of information gathered from the survey, opinions from the meeting, and archival information on mercy killing. The study will gather the responses from the 50 respondents. The experimental study and examination will infer an understanding on the moral and legitimate issues encompassing concept of euthanasia. Notably, the reactions from the medicinal experts, therapeutic learners, and nations that legitimize mercy killing will convey more weight in the study than the perspectives of the patients, families that encountered euthanasia and nations that criminalize mercy killing. Sampling design This study will utilize a populace of 50 respondents. As far as possible for the respondents will be between 35 and 55 years. The primary respondents will be medicinal experts, therapeutic understudies, patients, and families that encountered mercy killing. The study will involve gender parity by incorporating 25 guys and 25 females in the study. The study will incorporate diversity by incorporating 10 International students, diverse monetary classes, and around the range of 60 % of non-whites in the survey. However, just respondents with information on euthanasia will participate in the study. Data collection methodology The examination will primarily depend on the archival information and medical views on mercy killing. The members in the study will involve medicinal experts, medical students, patients, and families that encountered mercy killing. Expected results The expected results state that with the advancement of thoughts and with the modernization of thoughts, people, especially the new generation has started considering mercy killing as a positive side of the medical domain. It is believed by most of the students and the young medical professionals that withdrawing the treatment and waiting for the patient’s natural death is far more inhuman and immoral than helping him to get rescue of the suffering by injecting doses of some lethal drug. However the action should be at par with the nation’s legal framework, or else it would be considered illegal. Thus the hypothesis set in the research question is rejected in this case and mercy killing is established as an ethical practice (Dowbiggin, 2003). Conclusion The study provided several views stating the pros and cons of mercy killing. However as we are concerned with the question of morality associated with mercy killing, the study would show us the path that serves as a proper guideline towards the perception that mercy killing is not a crime and it is just a means of helping the patient from getting rid of his/her pain. The process never contains hatred for someone rather it is conducted out of love or affection. But the medical field and the legal system should be cautious about the application of the practice since there are people who would use the process in improper ways to commit murder or to indulge someone into committing suicide. Therefore law plays an important role in the practice of euthanasia throughout the entire world. Moreover it is always necessary on the part of the medical practitioner to consult the state law before helping a patient with mercy killing. Reference Basri, Z. (2012). Euthanasia: Which M Is It? Mercy Or Murder? USA: AuthorHouse. BBC News. (1999). Health US mercy killing not a crime. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/301020.stm Campaign for Dignity in Dying. (n.d.). The law and mercy killing. Retrieved from http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/assisted-dying/the-law-and-mercy-killing/ Catalano, J.T. (2011). Nursing Now!: Todays Issues, Tomorrows Trends. USA: F.A. Davis. Clark, P. (2006). Patient Deaths in New Orleans: Mercy Killing or Palliative Care? The Internet Journal of Law, Healthcare and Ethics, Volume 4 Number 2. Retrieved from http://ispub.com/IJLHE/4/2/5138 Debate.org. (n.d.). History and Debate of Euthanasia. Retrieved from http://www.debate.org/euthanasia/ Dowbiggin, I. R. (2003). A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America. New York : Oxford University Press. Humphry, D. (2007). Evaluating Dr. Kevorkian’s contribution to the right-to-die movement in America. Retrieved from http://www.assistedsuicide.org/Kevorkian_contribution_to_the_right_to_die_movement_in_America.html Loria, A. and et. al. (2013). Physician-assisted Death. Opinions of Mexican Medical Students and Residents. Archives of Medical Research 44 (2013) 475e478. Murkey, P.N. and Singh, K.S. (n.d.). Euthanasia [ Mercy Killing]. J Indian Acad Forensic Med, 30(2). Retrieved from http://medind.nic.in/jal/t08/i2/jalt08i2p92.pdf Read More