An Analysis of the Ethical Aspects of Euthanasia for Practicing Medical Professionals - Research Paper Example

08 March An Analysis of the Ethical Aspects of Euthanasia for Practicing Medical Professionals Introduction: The ethical aspects of euthanasia is perhaps the most debated and controversial topic in the modern day, especially in the context of the United States of America. The significance and magnitude of the issue warrants that it should be brought to the forefront of social discussions in the present day so as offer an understanding of various aspects relating to it and to gain insights into its effects on the individuals and society. While people suffer from diseases such cancer, Alzheimer’s and different types of commas on the one hand, controversies on the ethical validity of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide rage on the other. While some argue that euthanasia needs to be legalized as a means of terminating the suffering of people afflicted with diseases that cause extreme pain and distress, others contend that it is not ethical to take a human life and, therefore, interventions such as palliative care or end of life treatments should be resorted to as a means of relieving their pain. In a global context, many countries have legalized euthanasia while in the US certain states have legalized this measure and in others it is still illegal. Presently many people suffer from various terminal diseases and are living on life support, without any real sense of living. On the other hand, due to long term use, patients’ bodies develop resistance to pain medications and management of pain becomes difficult in such cases. Therefore, pain management and palliative care does not seem to be viable options in the case of patients who suffer pain as a consequence of diseases such as cancer. In this backdrop, the use of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide can be perceived as an ethical practice among medical professionals to terminate the extreme suffering and distress of afflicted individuals. Effects of Euthanasia: Euthanasia can be defined as the process of killing a person, based on his or her request, and it involves the administration of an injection to induce coma, during which a “neuromuscular relaxant” injection is given, which stops respiration and causes the death of patient (Materstvedt et al 98). On the other hand, palliative care can be perceived as an intervention seeking to improve the “quality of life” of terminal patients as well as their families through preventing pain or relieving the suffering by means of early identification, assessment and treatment of the problems (98). The word euthanasia connotes to a “gentle and easy death” and the concept is based on the stakeholders’ interest is positive in the context of seeking death not as an end itself but as a means to putting an end to the extreme suffering of the patient (Paterson 16). Thus, euthanasia has a positive impact for patients who are suffering pain, which cannot be mitigated through the therapeutic or caring process. On the other hand, depriving such an individual of his right to choose this discourse will amount to the denial of his or her autonomy. On the other hand, it also needs to be ensured that the person who chooses to die is in the right frame of mind to make informed choices. Laws Dealing with Euthanasia: The most significant law relating to euthanasia in the US is the 1997 ruling of Supreme Court that there is “no constitutional right to die” but it did not deprive the states of their power to passing legislations of their own to allow the right to die legally (Lachman121). On the basis of this ruling, many states in the country currently have legalized euthanasia or assisted suicide. On the other hand, law considers the right to life as “sanctimonious” and hence it forms an integral part of human rights and the nations across the world apply this philosophy to the concepts of life and death (Ansari, Sambo & Abdulkadir 673). Thus, it transpires that the right to life automatically applies to the right to death, especially when a person wants to terminate his or her life due to extreme pain caused by terminal diseases. This consideration reflects in the decision of many states in the US that have legalized euthanasia through “withdrawal or refusal of life support” or continuing the medical treatment of patients with terminal diseases (674). Different Opinions and Beliefs about Euthanasia: The EAPC Ethics Task Force feels that when a person expresses a desire to terminate his or her life, it must be respected and given “careful attention” but at the same time the provision of palliative care needs to be explored it the former option should not form a part of the latter (Materstvedt et al 99). On the other hand, evidence suggests that both euthanasia and palliative care focus on the common core value of “reducing human suffering” in physical, social and spiritual terms (107). However, some studies tend to show that palliative care cannot address all kinds of sufferings with the “same high success rate” and some types of palliative care is also known to cause discomfort to some patients than the actual pain itself (108). The efficacy of the practice of euthanasia has often been debated on the premise of its impact on the dignity of the individual who chooses it as a means to end suffering and, hence, contends that “individual autonomy” needs to be respected (Biggs 158). Evidence has further shown that hospice ideals often fetch inadequate responses to the suffering and, therefore, the failure of society to recognize euthanasia as a legal process must be considered as “destructive of human dignity” (158). On the other hand, the EAPC Ethics Task Force believes that if euthanasia is legalized, some physicians, in their eagerness to eliminate what they believe is “intolerable and degrading suffering” may begin killing patients (388). However, the Swiss Society for Palliative Care and Medicine believes that once a patient is provided access to quality palliative care but still prefers euthanasia, the he or she may be allowed the choice of the latter (.389). This seems to be an ideal approach as, on the one hand, it offers the best palliative care to alleviate the pain but, on the other, also honors the patients’ autonomy to decide his choice to die if the end of life care does not produce the intended results. However, some people believe that concepts like right to die with dignity, mercy death or assisting a person to end his life peacefully etc are “euphemisms for the possibility of killing” or aiding people to kill themselves (Lachman 121). In this context, it becomes apparent that conceding to assist a person, who wants to terminate his or her life, for getting relief from extreme suffering, cannot be termed as abetting murder because, the death comes as a solace for the patient and it is with his informed consent that the other person is helping him or her. It also needs to be considered that by continuing with the life, the person does not stand to gain anything but the furtherance of suffering. Theological perspectives on the issue opine that humans are the creations of God and they are bestowed with the “stewardship” only of their right and not “ownership” over the life on earth (145). Therefore, the religious view contends that the intentional termination of a person’s life is “inconsistent” with the laws of nature (145). Differences in Euthanasia Practices in US and Other Nations: While only some states in the US have legalized euthanasia, the Dutch parliament has passed a bill legalizing euthanasia on 28 November 2000, making Netherlands the “only nation” that permits physician assisted termination of a patient’s life (Bradbury 212). Similarly, Luxemburg has also enacted legislation on “16 March 2009” that decriminalizes euthanasia on patients by physicians treating them (Euthanasia12). However, the regulation mandates “precise and strict conditions” for the legal euthanasia to eliminate the chances of abuse of the law (12). Similarly, on 7 March 2011 the Law Commission of India has recommended that the patients that are terminally ill must be “allowed to end their lives” and thus the country joined a small group of countries that permitted euthanasia (Sethi & Sethi 12). Thus, it becomes apparent that many nations across the world, including those in the developmental stages, are supporting the concept of euthanasia for ending the suffering of terminal patients, suggesting a change in the attitude. Therefore, developing nations like the US, where already many states have accepted the system, should legalize euthanasia to patients with terminal diseases. Conclusion: The review of various literatures published on the topic, it transpires that euthanasia is being administered to patients with terminal diseases with a view to end their extreme suffering, as a last resort. The aim of this measure is to recognize the dignity of life and the autonomy of the patients to take informed decisions about their lives. While many states in the US already have legalized euthanasia others are yet to allow the procedure. On the other hand, while many nations are permitting euthanasia, several others are yet to decriminalize the procedure. It also becomes evident that the best recourse is to allow euthanasia, as a last resort after exhausting all the other alternatives such as palliative end of life care. Similarly, the legal system needs to ensure that it leaves no scope for abuse of the procedure either by the physicians or relatives of the patients by incorporating strict regulations as in the case of Luxemburg. Thus, considering all the pros and cons of the issue, it can be stated with a high level of confidence that euthanasia is an ethical practice for medical professionals to cease the suffering of terminal ill patients. Works Cited Ansari, Abdul Haseeb, Sambo, A. O. & Abdulkadir, A. B. “The Right to Die via Euthanasia: An Expository Study of the Shariah and Laws in Selected Jurisdictions.” Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences, Vol.6 (5), 673-681. Biggs, Hazel. “Euthanasia Death with Dignity and the Law.” Oxford: Hart Publishing Ltd., 2001. Print. Bradbury, Lisa W. “Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Recognizing Mature Minors in Euthanasia Legislation.” New England Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol.9 (1), 2002: pp.209-257. “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.” (2010). Luxemburg: Ministry of Social Security, 2010. Web. 08 Mar. 2014. Kaveny, Kathleen M. “Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia, and the Law.” Theological Studies, Vol.58, 1997: pp.124-148. Lachman, Vicky. “Physician-Assisted Suicide: Compassionate Liberation or Murder?” Medical Surgical Nursing, Vol.19 (2), 2010: pp.121-125. Materstvedt, Lars Johan et al. “Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Review from an EAPC Ethics Task Force.” Palliative Medicine, Vol.17 (2003): pp.97-101. Materstvedt, Lars Johan. “The Euthanasia Debate: Palliative Care on the ‘Slippery Slope’ towards Euthanasia.” Palliative Medicine, Vol.17 (2003): pp. 387-392. Paterson, Craig. “Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.” Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2008. Print. Sethi, Prahlad K & Sethi, Nithin K. “Euthanasia and the Right to Die.” Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, Vol.60, 2012: pp.12-13. Read More