Ethical Implications of Euthanasia. Health, Medicine, Nurcing Essay

Name:
Professor’s Name:
Course:
Date:
Ethical Implications of Euthanasia
Euthanasia refers to the intentional termination of an individual’s life by the use of a lethal dose of medication administration (Woods and Bickley 14). There is also the aspect of non-voluntary euthanasia that results from almost similar processes, however, it does not account for the consent of the patient suffering pain. On the other hand, physician-assisted suicide involves the action where the physician provides advice through which the patient can self-administer for the purposes of ending his life. The debate surrounding the use of euthanasia often elicit strong emotions and the inadequate definitions on the same term attempts to conceal the real meaning from, therefore, numerous attempt to obtain a clear consensus from the community. The majority of the advocates have tried to make it difficult by bracketing euthanasia alongside other acceptable life-ending practices for the purposes of gaining support from the public (Banović et al., 173).
However, the definitions should be made clear for the purposes of public understanding. The word euthanasia originates from a Greek term that generally means “good death”. There is a claim from different dimensions citing the advantage of euthanasia as bringing about a good death, however, the question on what constitutes good death is still a dilemma and open for debate. Euthanasia can be defined as the action undertaken by the doctor whereby he intentionally contributes to the ending of a person’s life through the administration of drugs upon voluntary consent of the individual for compassionate reasons. Argumentatively, some terms should not be applicable especially when referring to euthanasia, such terms include active or passive as well as voluntary or involuntary since the terms seem ambiguous as well as confusing. In the world of medicine, there is no such a term as involuntary euthanasia, this seems contradictory. This is since the act of killing an individual without their consent should not be concealed under euthanasia; instead, it should be referred to as murder. At the same time, it is important to provide details concerning what euthanasia does not represent such as withdrawal of treatment as well as management of symptoms towards the end of life (Fulmer).
Many patients undergo pain and suffering at the point of death that at times makes them be treated without dignity or rather making the patients experience spiritual disorders. This should not be considered as an individual experience, therefore, looking for better solutions seem the only way out. Such perspective drives the convincing concept of the legalization of euthanasia. Despite the many debates, there are no justifications whatsoever that support the ending of a human being under any circumstances. The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church concerning euthanasia consider it a grave crime against life provided by God. The same sentiments and attitudes are shared by the Evangelical churches. Generally, the concept of suffering is not only a medical concern but also extends beyond physical pain. The influence comes from different factors that can be psychological, cultural, or spiritual. The major response calls for dealing with physical symptoms despite the suffering persisting (Pesut, Barbara, et al).
The opponents of euthanasia
The major role of physicians is always to gain the patient’s respect and trust, therefore, building a therapeutic relationship. The question to such perspective points to how patients may perceive a physician that participates in killing rather than protecting the lives of patients. This makes the use of euthanasia a violation of medical codes of ethics that prohibits doctors from assisting the deaths of patients. The opponents of euthanasia perceive that it may at some point in life become a means of containing healthcare costs. According to those against the use of euthanasia, this may prove non-voluntary and therefore, working against the rights and values of human life. This aspect portrays that it is not for the physician to choose on the life of the patient irrespective of whether they consent, this presents non-violation of their human rights. Human rights guarantee individuals the right to seek the best medical management that enables them to face different disease conditions that may affect their life quality. Therefore, legalizing assisted dying in any form should be prohibited. The complexity of the use of euthanasia should be approached form the social, legal, ethical and moral dimensions. The major fear is the possibility of using euthanasia as a form of cost-saving in health care institutions.
Legislative perspective
From the legislative perspective, the focus of euthanasia has been on those considered not to have long lives. In the event that the patient is in the terminal stages of illness, in some cases, the treatments aimed at cure may no longer work or the burden of the side effects that entails nausea as well as vomiting may seem overwhelming. Such actions may seem to cancel all the benefits of treatment, therefore, prompts applications of other remedial actions. In such conditions, the treatment may not be focusing on prolonging life but prolonging the dying processes. This calls for a decision either to stop or not to start such a treatment. However, such a decision should be made in full consultation with the victim or patient and their family members. This should not be referred to as euthanasia since the intention is not directed on killing the patient but rather allowing the underlying disease to take its course. In such cases, the full supportive care continues for the purposes of ensuring that the patient is made comfortable.
The other situation easily confused with euthanasia involves adequate control of symptoms in terminally ill patients. Despite the idea of seeking direction from the patient in all areas of care concerning where efforts should be applicable, the case is quite different for the terminally ill. On various occasions within the terminal stages of the disease, the nature of distress as per the symptoms may call for careful sedation of the patient. This is done with careful consultation with the patient as well as family members as the dignity of the patient is given a priority (Quaghebeur et al., 467).
Such a process should not be referred to as euthanasia since the administration allows for regular awakening for the purposes of patient communicating with loved ones. The process cannot be referred to as euthanasia since the intention is never to kill but dealing with the distressing symptoms. Such practice involving control of symptoms at some point may be referred to as passive euthanasia owing to community perception that the application of morphine shortens the patient’s life. The public argument is that the use of such euthanasia is almost the same as using the lethal injection, usually referred to as active euthanasia. However, it is mythical the belief that morphine shortens a patient’s life and therefore, such belief results in problems with the palliative care workers. However, research shows that morphine used in therapeutic doses does not lead to shortening of life but rather in some cases may prolong it (Quaghebeur et al., 469).
The issue concerning dignified right to death variably underlies the existing ethics and morals. The presence of law and moral in some instances does not in any way connect to the necessary pervasiveness due to the existence of different legal systems. Some significant questions have risen across literature that questions the legality of moral and ethical conduct. However, the numerous issues raised around euthanasia show the existence or non-existence of moral differences that exists between either killing or letting the patient loose from the effects of the disease and really stand out (Quaghebeur et al., 467).
Proponents of euthanasia
The proponents of the direct active euthanasia from the philosophical, as well as religious perspective, give the basis for the immorality of active euthanasia as consideration of human life as sacred, despite the term being associated with traditional ethical principles. Such ethics considerably bypasses the argument concerning the reasons behind the killing through the use of direct active euthanasia. This is since they fail to recognize the nature of quality and content of life for an individual. There are those that moderately support the application and use of direct active euthanasia by rejecting the possibility of moral justification as well as legal regulation. While on the other hand radical stance is against the use of euthanasia and the killing of humans. The proponents of euthanasia do not believe in the fact that the actions associated with euthanasia represent an immoral stance, especially when applied in situations where the patient suffers from great pain. The medical practice reveals some situations where the patient is in a condition in which defies the control or reduction of their pain. However, the will of the patient should be considered above the wish of doctors and legislators. This is sin...