Biomedical Ethics: Euthanasia
Name:
Institution:
Biomedical ethics: Euthanasia
The practice of euthanasia that describes intended killing to alleviate suffering has been a subject of contention in medical ethics because of the approach to the act and the possible ethical implication of the killing. The prevailing discussion in the care sector indicates a section of medics oppose the practices on claims that it violates beneficence, respect for patient autonomy, justice, and non-maleficence ethics. The proponents of the administration of the act, on the contrary, believe that euthanasia allows self-determination, and alleviates suffering and costs incurred in care. Albeit the stance, the critics of the practices infer to deontological claim in citing religious morality and the possibility of bad precedence. For that reason, there is a need for the exploration of the claims before permitting the act. Nevertheless, euthanasia is acceptable in the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and other places of the globe for eradicating pain, medical costs, and the suffering of the family of the affected in line with utilitarianism, deontology, and ethics of care principles that acknowledge patient autonomy, justice, and non-maleficence.
Support
The first reason for supporting the practice is that medics conduct euthanasia after consultation with the affected party. All cases indicate that the practitioners championing the decision considers the consent of the patient in the act (Pesut, Greig, Thorne, Storch, Burgess, Tishelman, & Janke, 2020). The decision promotes the patient’s autonomy in line with deontology ethics since medics do not support the practice in a context where the affected person is incapacitated or religiously opposes the act. According to Ho (2015), the medics emulate beneficence principles governing care in decision-making. A case in point is promoting the best interest of the patient as a utilitarian concept. The idea guides euthanasia carried out in Oregon and places as Washington, where the practitioners redress all the underlying moral and cultural issues before proposing the action. Likewise, the opinion of the public indicates that 82% of the public support euthanasia in dire circumstance, yet medical ethics demands consideration of the opinion of the masse in the decision. Hence, in a state where a significant section of the public supports the practices, the continuation of the recognition of the practice as acceptable is justifiable.
Secondly, the history of the practices indicates that the decision to allow medics to conduct the procedure arose from the urge to champion non-maleficence ethics as a utilitarian concept. The pioneers of the concept considered the alternative approach for minimizing the suffering of the sick, while advancing the good of the family of the affected. According to Shibata (2017), the medics upheld the Hippocratic Oath that guides termination of the patient’s life, especially if the person is in a vegetative state. The nature of the practice in many places across the globe indicates that care professionals address a divergent array of issues, such as consideration of the family member’s view before deciding to allow euthanasia. Moreover, different types of practices exist. A medic can opt to initiate voluntary euthanasia to a prone to suicide but such proceeds after consultation with the affected party. The action could avert cases of terminal patients ill committing suicide, as witnessed in England, where at least 10% of the suicide arose due to the urge to alleviate disease pain. Those terminally ill in the country tend to end their lives. Additionally, the stipulation in such countries could have helped.
The evaluation of the legal cases logged in relation to the practice indicates that medics adhered to the ethics of care guidelines in promoting euthanasia. In the case of Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health debated in the United States, the professionals evaluated the pros and cons of the action before opting to assist patient suicide. Even though the religious critiqued the champions of the practice for violating beneficence, the code of conduct indicated that the medics prioritized patient autonomy in decision-making (Ho, 2015). Additionally, the legislative stipulation in the US recognizes the consent of ambiguity essential in medication. Such guided places as Washington and California enacting Acts that qualify euthanasia as acceptable. The authorities in the state decided after evaluating the biomedical ethics concerns. 2017 Public poll indicates that most medics support the practices in England as recounted by Doctors.Net.Uk research that proved that 55% vouched for the act.
Opposition
One of the bases for opposition to administering euthanasia is that the practice violates medical ethics and deontology concepts that demand respect for patient autonomy that recognizes the sanctity of life. The opponents of the practice acknowledge the right to life as the ultimate liberty with spiritual connotations. The second reason for opposing the practice is that euthanasia encourages conclusive decisions even in a context where unfathomed conditions could have resulted in the recovery of the patient. According to Huntoon (2016), the practice motivates rushed decisions without the consideration of the possible long-term implication. The scholars cite the case of patients recovering from a terminal illness as the basis for opposing the practice. The intellect believes that allowing a patient to live as long as medical procedures support the life of the individual. The decision is right from a deontological perspective if the affected as staunch believers. The opposition to the practice equally arises from the realization that permitting the act set precedence to initiatives that might results in the violation of the care. According to Pesut, et al. (2020), medics might prioritize euthanasia in permitted regions in a context where an alternative approach to care could have resulted in the resuscitation of a person suffering from a long-term ailment.
Additionally, there is also the concern of the practice allowing violation of the rights of the patient unknowingly. The typical scenario is the permission of euthanasia leading to an error in judgement if the party to the procedure is unconscious but proposes unacceptable decision. On numerous occasions, the suffering of the patients leads to the request yet the decision is misguided. The same person could have made a rational choice in normal circumstances if professionals advance the ethics of care (Furlong, 2018). However, the disillusionment caused by the pain of a disease leads a person to make such claims yet the decision is irreversible both in the long-term and short-term. On the contrary, the prohibition of the practice presents the opportunity to explore the possible implication of the restriction in the long-term. The decision does not affect long-term medications.
Rebuttal/Opinion
Despite the claims on legal, religious, and moral grounds, the debate on the ethicality of the practices is not new to the medical sphere. Medics began to redress the subject in the era of the ancient Greek kingdom and the Roman rule. The desire to promote ethics in medicine by considering the morality of euthanasia are some of the factors that influenced the formulation of the Hippocratic Oath. The same guided debates centuries later throughout the globe (Shibata, 2017). As things stand, contention persists due to the complexity in redressing the topic from a deontological and utilitarian perspective. Nonetheless, several states have legalized the practices after deliberation of the pros and cons of the act. The professionals who championed the enforcement of the act, permitting euthanasia considered the ethical principles of beneficence, respect for patient autonomy, justice, and non-maleficence ethics in the decision. Moreover, the professionals are cognizant of the fact that different forms of euthanasia exist. The same legislation does not allow the form of euthanasia that violates the rights of the patients to influence care decisions.
The basis for considering the approval of the practice despite the risks is that euthanasia exempts the person from unnecessary suffering that makes life unbearable. Even though the quantification of the experience afterward is impractical, the consequences endured by the family of the members is short-term in the decision to end the life of the person as opposed to permitting continual suffering. The act is utilitarian to the loved one and deontological in helping the patient die mercifully (Huntoon, 2016). Subsequently, a significant majority of medics cognisant of the ethics of the profession support euthanasia. Out of the population polled in 2017 in UU, 55% responded to Doctors.Net.Uk as supporting the practice in dire situation. Given that medics are familiar with the complexity that defines the professional, the support of their view is justified. The professionals seek to advance a noble cause in care and such applies in their decision.
Conclusion
Lastly, the practice of euthanasia is recognizable in care in places like Washington, US, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands for eradicating pain, medical costs, and family members suffering in a care context. The decision arose after consultation with other professionals. Even though critics point out the violation of the rights to life and medical ethics as contrasting respect for patient autonomy, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence ethic, the intended killing alleviates suffering. The contention on the subject only arises because of the approach to conducting the practice and the possible implication of the act. As noted, the evaluation of the claim of the proponents of the administration of the act and the critics is necessary for a conclusive decision. However, as things stand, the permission of the act is recognizable because a significant majority of medics support the practice. Moreover, different forms of euthanasia exist, and the medics consider the consent of the patient in the decision. The concern has a historical connotation, and its permission in the past has alleviated care expenses and suffering thus the reason for its approval despite the act violating care ethics
.
References
Furlong, E. (Ed.). (2018). Health Care Ethics. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Ho, D. (2015). Making Ethical Progress without Ethical Theories. AMA journal of ethics, 17(4), 289-296.
Huntoon, L. R. (2016). Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: the destruction of morals, ethics, and medicine. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 21(4), 98-102.
Pesut, B., Greig, M., Thorne, S., Storch, J., Burgess, M., Tishelman, C., … & Janke, R. (2020). Nursing and euthanasia: A narrative review of the nursing ethics literature. Nursing Ethics, 27(1), 152-167.
Shibata, B. (2017). An ethical analysis of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: rejecting euthanasia and accepting physician assisted suicide with palliative care. Journal of Legal Medicine, 37(1-2), 155-166.