Euthanasia: Essential Recommendations

Name Tutor Course Date Euthanasia Introduction In the last ten decades, medicine has advanced rapidly as humanity has learned the various means of treating numerous illnesses which have killed thousands of people throughout centuries. However, there are still several illnesses that cannot be cured presently and have caused significant suffering to people afflicted by them (Strinic 1-12). The current solution for such an issue is euthanasia. This process involves the termination of the life of a person that is extremely ill to relive them for the suffering that the disease is causing. Euthanasia can only be performed on a person with an incurable condition. However, there are numerous instances when euthanasia can be carried out. The paper will provide a background of euthanasia and also illustrate the various perspectives that support euthanasia and alternative arguments against this practice. The paper will clearly outline essential recommendations that can be utilized by healthcare professionals that will ensure that euthanasia can be carried out effectively. Background Euthanasia has been associated with mercy killing and assisted suicide. The World Health Organization stated in 2004 that euthanasia is the intentional practice which is cried out by a person to prevent the death of another individual that suffers from a terminal disease by painlessly putting them to death. Assisted suicide involves the deliberate act whereby a person kills themselves with the aid of another individual that has the knowledge and expertise in this act (Huxtable 1088-1089). Advances in technology especially in healthcare mean that people can now live longer lives. Modern medicine has extended the lifespan of people, and as a result, it has become highly likely than in the past for people not to die of chronic degenerative illnesses (Strinic 1-12). People have argued that that several individuals suffer significantly and would primarily benefit from euthanasia if it were legalized. The response provided by some is that the number of people that would feel threatened by the law by allowing euthanasia is much higher especially the elderly and those with disabilities (Casini et al. 349-368). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide involve numerous legal, ethical, medical and socio-cultural issues. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, however, should be based on the decision made by the terminally ill patient. This entire process is a humane way for the terminally ill individuals to end their lives with dignity and also without shame and suffering (Huxtable 1088-1089). Prolonging the life of the patient through technology only increases the agony and pain of the patient. Strinic (1-12) stated that palliative treatment has led to the invention of new methods of caring for terminally ill individuals as it emphasizes on utilizing of moral components that include empathy, hope and also valuing the quality of life of the afflicted patient. Euthanasia has been banned in numerous countries globally since both practices of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are illegal (Strinic 1-12). The most critical reason for the unlawful status of this practice is that the act itself is murder and the legalization of this process will only lead to more and more killing and the destruction of human life. The main objective of medicine is healing and preserving life and not harming the patient. However, euthanasia directly violates the Hippocratic Oath and also, it destroys the trust the patient places on the medical professionals. Arguments for Euthanasia and Physician-assisted suicide Euthanasia in terminally ill patients provides a great opportunity in advocating for organ donations. Critical organs can be saved during this practice which allows the physicians to help numerous patients suffering from organ failure as they wait for transplants. Euthanasia, therefore, promotes the mandate of the Right to die for the terminally ill and also the Right to life for patients that need organ transplant procedures (Strinic 1-12). Several patients die in intensive care due to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments, and when healthcare professionals foster better organ donation practices, this significantly increases the available organs for transplants for needy patients. In euthanasia, no harm is caused when a person chooses the manner that they intend to die. For a doctor that does not consider a person’s right to die when under significant pain, this forces the afflicted patent to live a life that has no dignity and complete suffering and in the case of terminally ill patients, ultimately death. While the reasons as to why the physician might deny the request of the patient, no person has the mandate to demand another person to live a painful and miserable life (Anderson 8). This is immoral as it removes the power of the patient to choose. Euthanasia provides the choice of making a compassionate choice and being sympathetic to the plight of the suffering patient. Those that argue that preserving the life of the terminally ill patient in extreme pain is typically not in that situation and therefore do not suffer the consequences of the final care decision. Anderson (5) highlighted that proponents against euthanasia generally mention the numerous tragic stories of patients that underwent this practice without their consent or for entirely immoral justifications. It is a fact that the history of physician-assisted suicide has its share of horrific narratives and therefore due to the significance of the healthcare practice, it must be adequately controlled by the relevant stakeholders. However, this is not a substantial reason to indicate that it cannot be adequately controlled. In developed countries such as Switzerland, euthanasia has been legalized and have experienced minor issues from its legalization (Huxtable 1088-1089). Any system or law can be abused; however, that law and system can always be refined in a manner that prevents such abuse from occurring. Similarly, it is possible to properly regulate euthanasia especially in consideration of safeguarding the physician as well as the patients (Anderson 2). The most vital component in regulating this practice will determine the line between what will be considered as euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and what is considered to be murder. The Hippocratic Oath has been misinterpreted as being against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. ...