Euthanasia and its Historical, Legal and Ethical Perspectives - Essay Example

? Euthanasia and its Historical, Legal and Ethical Perspectives of the of the of the Institution Date of Submission Euthanasia and its Historical, Legal and Ethical Perspectives Introduction Euthanasia is defined as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy” (Cavan & Dolan, 2000. p.12). However, although euthanasia is a commonplace term, it is also complex with several interpretations. It can refer to suicide by a patient who is gravely ill, mercy-killing by a physician upon patient’s request, non-voluntary killing by a physician acting in the best interests of a patient not in a condition to make decisions, and selective non-treatment by withdrawing life supporting medical aids for ending the patient’s life. All these forms of euthanasia are based on medical aspects, and are related to the etymology or origin of the term which is a compound of two Greek words ‘eu’ meaning good, and ‘thanatos’ meaning death (Kemp, 2002). Thus, the purpose of euthanasia is conveyed by its meaning as ‘good death’ or an easier, quicker end to life, avoiding prolonged and painful suffering while dying. Thesis Statement: The purpose of this research paper is to investigate the historical origins, development, laws, ethics and other aspects related to euthanasia. The Forms of Euthanasia Euthanasia can be voluntary or non-voluntary. In contemporary times, euthanasia is understood as a voluntary death assisted by a physician. For example, a terminally ill patient with acute pain and suffering “who asks his physician to either provide or administer a lethal dose of narcotics in order to secure a premature death” (Kemp, 2002, p.2). On the other hand, the term euthanasia is also used for the killing of mentally incompetent patients who will not be able to regain their capacity for rational existence but who function physically with the help of intravenous feeding or artificial respiration. The advance in medical technology has brought about such complications in medical decision making, where the boundaries between life and death are blurred. Whether euthanasia is classified as voluntary or non-voluntary, it is important to make further sub-divisions because death may be brought about by active or passive methods. A physician’s direct action of administering an overdose to his patient is the active method, while his stopping particular types of treatment that may prolong life is the passive method of carrying out euthanasia (Kemp, 2002). The History of Euthanasia In classical antiquity, suicide and euthanasia were commonly carried out because they did not conflict with the moral beliefs of the time. In contrast to the teachings of most modern day Christian churches, Jewish religious bodies and other world religions, the ancient Greeks and Romans did not believe in the sanctity of human life or the concept of human rights. However, in ancient Greece, some schools of philosophy such as the Epicureans and the Pythagoreans condemned it as a rebellion against the will of God. On the other hand, thinkers such as Plato commended euthanasia as noble if it helped to avoid dishonor or the agony of a long terminal illness. Dowbiggin (2007) states that the support given by ancient Greece and Rome to euthanasia was a contrast to its rejection by earlier civilized communities. From the early modern period instances of euthanasia have been known, as seen in Thomas Moore’s Utopia published in 1516, and from reports of ending the suffering of dying patients, However, “western Christian physicians are generally thought to have unanimously rejected active euthanasia until the late nineteenth century” (Stolberg, 2008, p.19). From that time, individual physicians also joined in with those who had from 1870s onwards publicly supported active euthanasia. The developments that advocated euthanasia included increasingly sophisticated medical diagnosis and prognosis that could judge a patient’s possible recovery with reasonable accuracy; the development of anesthesia and other new, powerful means for the relief of pain and suffering, and reduced resistance based on religious reasons. In 1998, Maurice Genereaux was the first physician in North America’s history to be convicted of assisted suicide. Similarly, in the 1990s Jack Kevorkian, the notorious “Doctor Death” helped nearly one hundred individuals to die by injecting poison to hasten their death. Euthanasia is a crime in every American state and all the countries across the globe except the Netherlands. The withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for chronically ill patients is exemplified in the case of Terri Schiavo of Florida. At the age of twenty-six, she had suffered a cardiac arrest and lapsed into a coma. For the purpose of inheriting the amount given by the court for her rehabilitation, the patient’s husband claimed that Terri would not have wanted to be resuscitated; similarly he got her fluids and food discontinued with the help of a court order. Causing death by starvation and dehydration is a painful, drawn-out process and is not a good death (Dowbiggin, 2007). Is Euthanasia Legally Permitted? Activists promoting physician-assisted suicide were given a breakthrough from opinion polls favoring euthanasia, and the 1994 vote in Oregon supporting the first law in American history permittig euthanasia. At the same time, Americans’ wariness about legalizing euthanasia had not changed much, although they supported its clandestine practice. The Oregon victory was followed by referendum defeats in Michigan and Maine, and a 1997 United States Supreme Court ruling that denied physician-assisted suicide constitutional rights (Dowbiggin, 2003). The opposition’s stance was no longer limited only to the churches and the pro-life movement. There is a sharp difference between the law’s approach to passive and active euthanasia. The law recognizes the patient’s right to refuse treatment, thereby permitting passive euthanasia in certain circumstances. Active voluntary ending of life is unequivocally prohibited in most regions as murder regardless of the mitigating circumstances that are likely to exist in such cases. Additionally, a physician who assists actively in the suicide will be criminally liable for the offence, irrespective of the particular circumstances. On the other hand, a doctor may lawfully comply with a patient’s request for withholding life-saving treatment which will lead to death. The issue of assisted suicide is not implicated in these circumstances (Otlowski, 2000). The law in England is stated to be inconsistent, prohibiting the deliberate termination of patients’ lives by an act, but permitting it at least in the case of patients in a persistent vegetative state (pvs) by omission. The Winterton Bill, 1999 was introduced prohibiting the withdrawal of life-giving medical treatment (Keown, 2002). The Ethics of Euthanasia: Does the Good Outweigh the Bad Side? The ethical question about euthanasia that continues to generate debate is whether it can ever be right for a doctor to kill a patient, “even one who is experiencing severe suffering and who asks for death” (Keown, 2002, p.2). The issue of fundamental moral principle is the basis of the ‘slippery slope’ concept, which questions whether the physician’s administering a lethal drug to a gravely suffering patient would limit euthanasia to such circumstances, or would the practice slide down a slippery slope to ending the lives of patients who did not really want to die. Similarly, those whose severe suffering could be alleviated with palliative care, and those not suffering much or at all should not fall victim to physicians being legally permitted the use of euthanasia. In the world-wide ongoing debate it is the issue of slippery slope that is the centre of focus. Thus, it is clear that though the benefits of legalizing euthanasia are great, the downsides are highly significant. The only solution lies in permitting particular interventions only in specific circumstances which are clearly defined. Conclusion This paper has highlighted the practice of euthanasia, identified its two main types as voluntary and non-voluntary, investigated its historical past, discussed the legality of physician assisted suicide, examined its ethicality and whether the benefits outweigh the adverse aspects of euthanasia. Because of the great advances in medical science for prolonging life as in a patient in a vegetative state, euthanasia is a significant option for providing release from a hopeless and difficult situation. Similarly, it can relieve the acute suffering of a terminally ill patient in a high state of distress, as well as his caregivers, besides reducing the burden on expensive healthcare resources. The good aspects of euthanasia appear to outweigh the bad possibilities. Therefore, it is concluded that the legally drawn out guidelines should be followed in detail by physicians who wish to help a patient in a terminal condition with acute suffering. References Cavan, S. & Dolan, S. (2000). Euthanasia: The debate over the right to die. The United States of America: The Rosen Publishing Group. Dowbiggin, I. (2007). A concise history of euthanasia: Life, death, God, and medicine. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Dowbiggin, I. (2003). A merciful end: The euthanasia movement in modern America. New York: Oxford University Press. Kemp, N.D. (2002). Merciful release: The history of the British euthanasia movement. Great Britain: Manchester University Press. Keown, J. (2002). Euthanasia, ethics, and public policy: An argument against legalisation. England: Cambridge University Press. Otlowski, M. (2000). Voluntary euthanasia and the common law. New York: Oxford University Press. Stolberg, M. (2008). Two pioneers of euthanasia around 1800. The Hastings Center Report, 38(3): pp.19-22. Read More