Analysis_of_Euthanasia

| Analysis of Euthanasia | | HSC545October 29, 2012 | | | | | | | | | | | Euthanasia is a highly complex, spiritual and emotional, ethical dilemma that involves issues related to the quality-of-life , the relief of suffering, the right to self-determination, the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, medical futility, and the ability to prolong life through medical technology. The United States is split between preserving life and the right-to-die. According to Burkhardt and Nathaniel (2008), “The ability to prolong life, or at least to extend the functioning of the physical being, has prompted the necessity of dealing with some very important issues. One dilemma relates to questions of quality of life, and whether physical existence is synonymous with living…. A frequently asked question is whether a person is truly alive in situations where there is merely physiological functioning, without awareness of oneself or others” (p. 232). Comprehensively understanding the euthanasia taboo requires a basic understanding of the history, varying arguments for and against, the differing subtypes, the potential societal impacts of euthanasia (assisted suicide). Euthanasia: the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. (The key word here is "intentional". If death is not intended, it is not an act of euthanasia) Voluntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed has requested to be killed. Non-voluntary: When the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent. Involuntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary. Assisted suicide: Someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps another person to kill themselves it is called "physician assisted suicide." Euthanasia By Action: Intentionally causing a person's death by performing an action such as by giving a lethal injection. Euthanasia By Omission: Intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water. Voluntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed has requested to be killed. Non-voluntary: When the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent. Involuntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary. Assisted suicide: Someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps another person to kill themselves it is called "physician assisted suicide." Euthanasia By Action: Intentionally causing a person's death by performing an action such as by giving a lethal injection. Euthanasia By Omission: Intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water “Euthanasia”, a term which is derived from two Greek words meaning “God” and “death”, dates back to the writings of Hippocrates revealing that even then it was an area of concern and controversy. In ancient Greek and Rome, voluntary euthanasia was permitted for those who had lost the desire to live. Though opposed then, it was not forgotten, and was again revisited in modern times in New York when the first anti-euthanasia law was passed in 1828. It was strongly rejected by the medical and religious communities because of the potential inherent dangers (Sandhyarani, 2009). Debates for the legalization of euthanasia in Great Britain and America have been recorded since the 1930’s. The Germans use of this practice for their political agenda in concentration camps to eliminate vulnerable persons, revealed how dangerous the passage of any such law could be to a society (Sandhyarani, 2009). The advancement in medical technology in prolonging life with “extraordinary measures” have led to the need for “advance directives”. Patients now have the right to refuse to have their lives prolonged if terminally ill or permanently incapacitated, by having a living will which is accepted in a court of law for passive euthanasia (Funk & Wagnalls , 2006). Physician-assisted suicide or active euthanasia has been the focus of public debate in America for many years. One of the most publicized cases occurred in 1999 in a Michigan courtroom when the now infamous Dr. Jack Kevorkian was imprisoned for eight years for second degree murder after allegedly assisting his terminally ill patient to die. Because of the thin line between “doing no harm” and “alleviating suffering”, many clinicians still struggle today with this ethical dilemma. The on-going debate and the drive to legalize euthanasia continue in modern societies today. The expressed view of supporters is that one should have the autonomy to decide when their quality of life has ended. Instead of being kept alive against their will, they believe that legalizing euthanasia would allow terminally ill patients to die with dignity, without being a burden to their loved ones and society (The Petition Site, 2010). Those who oppose euthanasia argue that “terminal” may not only be used for people who are immediately dying, but maybe extended to include the elderly, or anyone whose lives are thought to be meaningless. The real danger in this is that euthanasia may be used by managed care legislators for cost control, and may become non-voluntary (Arguments Against Euthanasia, n.d.). Notable strides made in end-of-life care and adequate pain control has challenge the petition for euthanasia as a necessary means to and end, as patients can now die with dignity through adequate hospice services. Though legal in countries like Belgium, Norway, Albania and Sweden for patients with incurable diseases, the weight of the moral implications of this issue will continue to be a deterrent for its acceptance in the United States and many other western cultures (Sandhyarani, 2009). When considering the topic of euthanasia, the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice come to mind. In regards to autonomy, few places allow an individual the opportunity for active euthanasia such as physician assisted suicide. The autonomy for active euthanasia has been upheld by the legal system in a few states such as Montana and Oregon (Internationaltaskforce.org, 2009). However, passive methods such as the discontinuance of life support or foregoing treatment is seen as acceptable (LeBaron, 2010). Concerning beneficence and nonmaleficence: does euthanasia accomplish good or evil' This depends on the perspective of the individual viewing this situation. It could be argued that euthanasia alleviates unnecessary suffering and frees limited resources to care for those with a greater likelihood of recovery. It also could be argued that any involvement with euthanasia is wrong because life is precious and holy and should be preserved at all costs and with all available measures. The issue of justice can be segregated into the ideas of individual justice and distributive justice. Individual justice concerns itself with what is just and equitable for the individual (Burkhardt & Nathaniel, 2008). Again, what is right for one individual may not necessarily be right for another. The question of who makes this decision refers back to autonomy. Other questions to be considered are: is it just to deny a suffering, terminally ill patient the means to die, or is it just to allow a person the means to die prematurely' Now, distributive justice is concerned with what is just and equitable for society as a whole (Burkhardt & Nathaniel, 2008). Looking at euthanasia with the perspective of distributive justice gives it an altogether different feeling. Is it just to utilize limited resources to prolong the life of the terminally ill and suffering while others with better prognoses go untreated due to lack of resources' People generally have strong feelings either for or against euthanasia. The question remains ‘is death a justifiable end'’ The answer to this question depends on the values of the individual answering it. The values that jump out at us here are life and quality of life. If one values the sanctity of life above quality of life, then the end is not justified. Euthanasia would be wrong to this person because life has inherent goodness, and the end of life is seen as a bad thing under any circumstance. Or, it could be said that we should not control the end of life because life is holy and it should be left to God to decide when a person should die. However, if quality of life is valued above life itself, the end may be justifiable. For example, a person who values quality of life is involved in an accident that leaves him in a vegetative state. The family of this person could make a case that their loved one has lost the quality of his life, and therefore his life itself has little value. They may see euthanasia as an acceptable means of closure for their suffering and for the suffering of their loved one. References Arguments Against Euthanasia (n.d.). Retrieved from www.euthanasia.com/argumentsagainsteuthanasia.html Burkhardt, M. A. & Nathaniel, A. K. (2008). Ethics & issues in contemporary nursing (3rd ed.). Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning. Funk & Wagnalls (2006). Euthanasia. Retrieved from www.history.com/rId=FWNE.fw..eu069800.a#FWNE.fw..eu069800.a LeBaron, G. (2010). The ethics of euthanasia, rethinking the ethic: A possible solution. Retrieved, from http://www.quantonics.com/The_Ethics_of_Euthanasia_By_Garn_LeBaron.html Newsblarg.com. (2010, January 8). Montana becomes third state to legalize euthanasia. Retrieved from www.newblarg.com/mode/1881 Sandhyarani, N. (2009). History of Euthanasia. Retrieved from www.buzzle.com/articles/history-of-euthanasia.html