Category: Euthanasia

The aim of this paper is to compare and contrast the various viewpoints of Christian deontology and utilitarian physician with regards to euthanasia. Euthanasia involves termination of the life of an individual to relieve them from their suffering due to terminal illness. The act of euthanasia as sparked a lot of debate among philosophers who have deontological and utilitarian perceptions. Deontological ethics justifies whether an action is right or wrong with regards to the moral code of the action. On the other hand, utilitarian ethics focuses on the consequence of an action and perceives the action itself as a secondary aspect when determining whether it is right or wrong. The two concepts hold that Euthanasia is performed with a good intention of relieving the patient from their agonies.

Introduction

Ethics is a vital aspect of good professional practices across disciplines. It encompasses moral dilemmas which arise from conflicts in obligations or duties and consequences which are associated with them. Overall, the aspects of ethics are based on autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence as well as justice. Ethical practice by definition is a systematic approach to the institution of the above maxims to deal with appropriate decision making. Whereas the definitions are clearly expressible, exceptions are witnessed in the principles in cases of clinical practice. Two arms of thoughts are existing in practical ethics with regards to decision making: Christian Deontologist and Utilitarian Physician. In the former, obligations and duties are of prime importance while in the latter, outcomes tend to justify the ways or means of achieving it. Ideally, ethical values and teachings of utilitarianism and Christian ethics have various similarities in some aspects while at the same time exhibiting a number of diverse issues in other aspects. This essay is therefore designed to demonstrate the similarities and differences between Christian Deontologist and Utilitarian Physician.

Deontology ethics

Ethics of deontology involve theories which put special emphasis on the relationship between morality and duty of human activities. The ethics holds that actions are considered to be morally acceptable and good because of the characteristic of the actual action, rather than the product of the action. It shows that some acts have moral obligations regardless of the consequences that they have on human welfare. In contemporary moral philosophy, it is among the normative theories that deal with the choices which are morally forbidden, required or permitted in the society. As such, it is categorized within the domain of moral theories which assess and guide the choices that humans have to make as opposed to focusing on the kind of a person an individual is. Summarily, it can be denoted that deontological ethics tend to avoid the overly alienated and demanding aspects of consequentialism as well as according more with the conventional perceptions of human’s moral responsibilities.

Utilitarian Ethics

Utilitarian ethics could be described as a normative ethical system which is fundamentally focused on consequences of ethical decisions. It is built on the notion that the consequence of a particular act is the most significant determinant of morality. This ethics is mainly guided by the principles of teleological and consequential reasoning. According to teleological reasoning, ethical decisions depend on the consequences of an action. Therefore, people are expected to do the right thing if the consequences of the action are desirable. Moreover, if an individual act’s without good intentions, but the consequence turns out to be desirable, then the act could be deemed to be ethical. Similarly, consequentialists reasoning hold that the means of getting an ethical decision is secondary. As such, the end results have to be considered before the determination of morality of the decision is done.

Euthanasia

Euthanasia can be described as the termination of the life of a very sick person in order to relieve them from suffering. Particularly, those who undergo euthanasia have incurable diseases or conditions. Other cases include situations where individuals request the physicians that their lives should be ended. Mostly, the decision to perform euthanasia is guided by the request of the sick individual. However, in cases where the subject is extremely ill, such decisions can be made by the medics, relatives or the court. In some countries such as United Kingdom, euthanasia is considered illegal as it amounts to killing. As such, it has sparked a lot of debate for several years with regards to ethical reasoning that surrounds it.

There are various agonizing dilemmas that are raised by euthanasia. First, one wonders whether it is right to terminate the life of an individual because they are undergoing severe pain or suffering. Second, the circumstance under which euthanasia is justifiable is still questionable. Finally, the question of whether a moral difference between letting someone to die and killing them exists. Both Christian deontologist and utilitarian physician ethics tends to explain the dilemmas that are posed by euthanasia.

Christian deontologist reaffirms that at the very least the practice of medicine is constrained by moral absolutes. As such, it does not believe that a right or wrong action is judged by the consequence that it elicits. Christian deontologists hold that there are things which need not to be done to patients by physicians. Regarding the issue of euthanasia, Edmund Pellegrino, a physician-philosopher, stated that physicians must not kill since nothing is more uncompromising or fundamental. The moral obligation of physicians is to save lives rather than taking them away. Furthermore, the right to live attaches an obligation for optimum protection of the same life. It is thus morally improper to end the life of an individual based on the fact that they are suffering. However, deontological ethics perceive that when the intention to relieve the individual of their pain, then the action is morally justified. Therefore, the specific characteristic of helping the subject to avoid incurring prolonged suffering is a good deed. The utilitarian physician holds that it is ethically appropriate for physician-assisted death to be termed morally right because the action is performed in the best interest of the patient. Since utilitarian ethics are focused on consequences rather than means of achieving the consequence, the action of killing the patient is secondary. The most significant issue to be considered is the relief that a terminally ill patient gets at the end of the day. In addition to, the ethics holds that families of the patients should not be involved unless they are providing voice to the wishes of the patient. Arguably, it is viewable as a greater good since the physicians are prescribing or administering medication which eliminates the pain of a patient in the long run. Moreover, utilitarian physicians count personal autonomy as a significant value above and over the feeling of satisfaction that it provides, together with the frustration that it prevents. Arguably, euthanasia has to raise personal autonomy by giving people some level of control on when their lives should end. Finally, euthanasia is believed to be morally justified by utilitarian physicians because of the consequence that it provides on resource allocation. It holds that resources that are used to keep people who have incurable diseases alive are costly. Therefore, it is moral to use such resources to treat those who have curable conditions after terminating the lives of those with prolonged and incurable conditions.

Overall, utilitarian physicians back their arguments by the maxim that the result of euthanasia has greatest good to larger group of people. Particularly, the patient involved gets to be relieved of prolonged suffering, the families of the patient saves on cost of medical care and other patients with curable diseases get to survive resources that would otherwise be used on the former. Both Christian deontologist and utilitarian physician have various similarities and differences with regards to euthanasia as discussed in the following section.

Similarities between Christian deontologist and utilitarian physician

Both Christian deontologist and utilitarian physician are in support of the need to relieve patients of their sufferings. Christian deontologist hold that the physicians have the moral obligation of ensuring that patients are relieved of their pain and treated of their illnesses. The action of prescribing medicine that eventually kills the patients with terminal illnesses is therefore justified by the intention to relieve them of their pain. Similarly administering such medicine to take their lives away is by all means aimed at helping them overcome the unending suffering and agony that they face. Utilitarian physician believes that the consequence, which is relief of pain and suffering, is the ultimate significance of a physician’s action. Therefore, it is immaterial to consider the route followed by the physician to achieve the target. It can thus be denoted that both accounts of ethics are focused on the welfare of the patient. Secondly, both accounts of ethics acknowledge that the responsibility of seeking for termination of life primarily rests with the patient in question. Accordingly, they assume that the action of ending the life is only actualized upon the request of the ailing individual. As such, it can be differentiated from murder cases.

Differences between Christian deontologist and utilitarian physician

First, the two accounts of ethics differ in terms of involvement of agents in the decision making process. Deontological morality provides space for agents to demonstrate their special concern to their families and friends. Particularly, the relatives and religious affiliations of the patient can intervene to share their concern over the subject before euthanasia is performed. On the other hand, utilitarian physician believes that utmost autonomy is vital during euthanasia. For this reason, individuals are solely responsible for their decisions as long as the final consequence is bound to benefit the greatest number. Secondly, Christian deontologist, unlike utilitarian physician has room for supererogatory. Ideally, deontologist ethics encourage Christians to do things which are morally praiseworthy at the expense of meeting morality demands. Thus, a Christian deontologist would not encourage any form of euthanasia unless it is certain that the patient cannot accommodate the pain anymore and termination of their life would be utmost help to their situation. Therefore, a lot of weight is given to the individual subject rather than the society. On the other hand, utilitarian physician would quickly recommend euthanasia so long as the decision stands a chance of benefiting a larger population. As such, it does not consider the situation of the individual but rather that of the community.

Lastly, Christian deontologist is guided by ethics of duty in which morality of every action is determined by the nature of the action. Ergo, harm is not accepted irrespective of the nature of consequences expected. Fundamentally, the decisions made by Christian deontologist could be appropriate for a particular subject but does not need to necessarily provide a desirable outcome to the society. Arguably, the relationship between a doctor and the patient is natural deontological because the medical teaching actions inculcate such tradition. When such deontological tenets are breached, issues of medical negligence tend to arise. Consequently, euthanasia would only mean that a Christian deontologist is doing good to the patient in question. Conversely, utilitarian physician’s decisions are guided by the greatest benefit gained for the greatest number of people. Since the morality of an action is determined by its consequence, the action can lead to harm to a specific individual or a few individuals. The main focus is put on the net outcome, which is often poised to hold maximum benefit. Unlike Christian deontologist, utilitarian physician holds that the healthcare system, time, money and energy are finite and should be properly designed to achieve the best health care for the entire society. As such, spending such resources on those with terminal illness harms the greatest number. To that effect, termination of lives of people with incurable diseases facilitates use of such resources on the greater number of people with curable diseases.

Conclusion

Medical ethics involves moral philosophy and deals with the conflict between duties, obligations and possible consequences. The two main strands of thought which exist in ethics in relation to euthanasia are Christian deontological and utilitarian physician ethics. In the former, the nature of action has more weight compared to the consequence, whereas the latter gives more weight to the consequence. The two accounts share the same notion that the practice of euthanasia intends to relieve the patients of their unending agony and suffering caused by incurable diseases.

Bibliography:

1. Emanuel, Ezekiel J., Bregje D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, John W. Urwin, and Joachim Cohen. ‘Attitudes and practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States, Canada, and Europe.’ Jama 316, no. 1 (2016): 79-90.
2. Gerdes, J. Christian, and Sarah M. Thornton. ‘Implementable ethics for autonomous vehicles.’ In Autonomes fahren, pp. 87-102. Springer Vieweg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2015.
3. Grenz, Stanley J. The moral quest: Foundations of Christian ethics. InterVarsity Press, 2016.
4. Hursthouse, Rosalind, and Roger Crisp. ‘Normative virtue ethics.’ Ethica 645 (2013).
5. Keown, John. Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalisation. Cambridge University Press, 2018.
6. Koenane, Mojalefa LJ. ‘Euthanasia in South Africa: Philosophical and theological considerations.’ Verbum et Ecclesia 38, no. 1 (2017): 1-9.
7. Liégeois, Axel. ‘Euthanasia and mental suffering: An ethical advice for Catholic mental health services.’ Christian Bioethics 19, no. 1 (2013): 72-81.
8. Mandal, Jharna, Dinoop Korol Ponnambath, and Subhash Chandra Parija. ‘Utilitarian and deontological ethics in medicine.’ Tropical parasitology 6, no. 1 (2016): 5.
9. Motlani, Rishad Raffi. ‘Islam, Euthanasia and Western Christianity: Drawing on Western Christian thinking to develop an expanded Western Sunni Muslim perspective on euthanasia.’ (2011).
10. Paquette, Michael, Erich J. Sommerfeldt, and Michael L. Kent. ‘Do the ends justify the means? Dialogue, development communication, and deontological ethics.’ Public Relations Review 41, no. 1 (2015): 30-39.

Introduction

With the changes in views of modern society, what are ethically acceptable and unpleasant lies with the individuals? Most of the people in society believe that they have the freedom to decide what is appropriate as far as their life is concerned however, some believe that it is not proper to interfere with nature especially when it regards life. This essay will outline three justifications for Euthanasia/Assisted death including quality of life, the emotional pain of losing self-reliance and autonomy, and three justifications against including the devaluation of life, abuse of the vulnerable, and discouragement for new research.

The main argument in favor of Euthanasia is that the standard of life the patient experiences during the disease even with medication is severe. In some cases, some argue that the medication will have no effect on the disease, therefore opt for Euthanasia as an alternative. The whole purpose in this instance is to relieve a patient from hopelessness life which maybe be seen as harmful. Dying for that person is a benefit as compared to being alive even with the best end-of-life care. For example, a cancer patient whose chemotherapy is not responding is immobile, and cannot fend for herself might try to commit suicide if Euthanasia is not regarded as appropriate as a way to relieve extreme pain.

Another reason is that there is fear of the unknown, some patients according to Phillipa Malpas, Maria Wilson, Nicola Rae, and Malcolm Johnson were afraid of losing self-dependency and afraid to ask for assistance because they didn’t want to be a burden to their family and friends. In a study that was done, some treatments had left patients financially unstable, and asking for aid from relatives was just impossible for them.

Finally, most people believe they have the right to die, each patient should be able to choose how and when they want to die. It is believed that the patients are the ones in pain and must die with dignity. They should have a final say in how they want to spend their last days without any hesitation or have any guilt regarding their decision. Just like people have the freedom to marry who they want, should also apply when an individual wants to decide on how to end his or her life.

However, supporters against Euthanasia believe that it devalues life, the community’s appreciation of life will fade and people might end up not treasuring it. Keith Wilson in his study believes that life is extremely important and should be preserved at any cost, meaning that it must be lived to the last stage of it naturally. Thus, any artificial inference is regarded as inappropriate.

The advocates against Euthanasia also believe that gives too much power to medical expertise, which will lead to abuse. Doctors and nurses might dedicate less of their time to those that are terminally ill even though the patients still have hope which will result in them dying early than anticipated. Exposes helpless people, coercion from insensitive family members, less care of the extremely ill.

In summary, this essay has explained the arguments for and against assisted death. It explained the trauma the patient’s experience, and the fear associated during the course of their diseases. It also mentioned how the patients have power over their lives and are entitled to choose how they what to end it. However, on the other hand, arguments against showed that life will not be treasured or valued, and many people will abuse those that are vulnerable. Scientists will lose confidence as people will be opting for an easy way out (assisted death).

The element of euthanasia (painless assisted killing of a patient that is suffering) is that it is seen as morally wrong to assist in someone’s choice of death over life because it is basically assisting a person suffering to commit suicide. If Euthanasia would be illegal it would cause problems. These problems consist of the individual unable to make the decision for themself. Head trauma making them unable to think for themselves. How do we know if the person does want to stop suffering? This is where we find some legal conditions that need to be applied in order to assess the person’s full and true thought process is present in the decision of euthanasia. Do we not have the right to die? Is it not our human right to choose what we do with ourselves? The practice of Euthanasia is illegal in most countries because in most eyes euthanasia is considered wrong and immoral.

My opinion on the subject of euthanasia is that, yes, people who are suffering from an incurable illness or other conditions should be able to have the option of euthanasia. A person would be depressed or unable to handle the pain from their condition or possibly do not have the will to live anymore. Mark Van, was the victim of an acid attack by his previous girlfriend. His face was left misconfigured and his eyesight was gone. He did not want to live anymore and had to go through numerous legal battles to get him accepted for euthanasia. In my opinion, I think that is the morally right thing to do and that is why euthanasia should be legalized. It is a safer option than self-attempted suicide in an uncontrolled environment. I think that euthanasia should not be applied if you are able to recover from your condition. It should only be used in extreme cases such as events that left you in an extremely disabled state of being. I also think that it should be up to the individual involved, not the family.

Natural law Theory

Natural law or the theory that we have is not decided by the government or a figure in power, but by the morality of the subject. Thomas Aquinas, Divine Law, Natural Law, Positive Law 45 “and so even things that regard inclinations of concupiscible power will need to belong to the natural law” We choose what we do with our human nature. The human decision that prevents a human living happily is deemed unnatural, or immoral. According to John Stuart Mill, a British philosopher, The crucial elements are, natural law is we decide what is morally right independent of an authority figure of a law, “justice must give way to some other moral principle, but that what is just in ordinary cases is, by reason of that other principle, not just in the particular case.’. The normative strength of the natural law theory comes from children at an immature age. They do not understand but only act inhabit. According to Aquinas, “The Natural Law always abides in human beings, as I shall make clear later. But human beings’ reason, to which what law belongs, is not always thinking about the natural law. “Therefore, the natural law is a habit, not an act.” (Aquinas 361) Summa Theologica. the natural law is always inside of us unconsciously being used.

Euthanasia And Natural Law

Euthanasia as applied to the natural law theory the ethical issue most important is, do we have the right to our own life? You would think we have a right to out on life, but it is illegal in most states. The legal issues are that families would want to provide euthanasia to inherit the land faster. This has been a problem in India for some time now but is now starting to be legalized in many do to people wanting to choose death as an option of treatment. The conclusion I can make is that we do have to right to our own life according to natural law theory. The authority figure should not be able to interfere in our own life decisions. It is incorrect to assume one has that natural right to another being. The theory supports my conclusion of natural rights in terms of euthanasia. There should not be any trouble seeking assisted death from a physician for the cure of the suffering of your being in question. The weakness in the theory is that what is the illness is curable. Will you still be able to go through with euthanasia. Is what when we do not have a natural right and is this when the authority figure steps in? I would assume yes, to prevent any unnecessary deaths from procuring in the eyes of authority.

References:

1. Chapple, A et al. “What people close to death say about euthanasia and assisted suicide: a qualitative study.” Journal of medical ethics vol. 32,12 (2006): 706-10. doi:10.1136/jme.2006.015883 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16294446 Accessed October 20, 2019
2. Thomas Aquinas, divine Law, Natural Law, Positive Law. https://faculty.fordham.edu/klima/blackwell-proofs/MP_C45.pdf, Accessed October 20, 2019

What are the pros and cons of euthanasia for terminally ill people being legal?

In this assignment, I will explore arguments for and against the legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted death in the UK. I will use case studies and present the arguments using detailed research. Euthanasia is the act of knowingly ending the life of a person, deliberately with the intent of ending lifelong suffering. The term, according to Michael Manning (1998) “originally meant only ”good death’ meaning euthanasia was a humane way of ending a person’s suffering. The Oxford dictionary agrees with Manning (1998) and describes euthanasia as a ‘gentle and easy death.

When living with an incurable disease such as terminal cancer, patients in the UK are not given the choice to be able to end their lives rather than die a terrible death with suffering and pain. Vulnerable people whereby medicine cannot help in curing their disease are forced to live through suffering and pain until the day they die. All human life has the right to freedom of choice; humans can choose their wedding dress, what they want for dinner and whether they wish to have children in the future; women are given the choice to have double mastectomies should they carry the BRCA Gene mutations, thus meaning they are having the choice to lose a big part of their body and; men have the choice to have a vasectomy, thus potentially ending their chances of ever producing more human life. Michael Irwin (2013) agrees that humans should have the right to choose when to terminate their life if faced with an inevitable death due to lifelong illnesses and believes the law should change to help these people in such instances. Legalizing euthanasia will permit doctors to write prescriptions for the patient to enable them to pass through a humane, quick, and pain-free death. Marcia Angell (2013) makes a remarkably interesting argument where she believes that when faced with a terminally ill patient, the focus of the clinician should change from healing the patient’s illness as there is no cure, to relieving the patient’s suffering instead. However, she also explains how no clinician should be forced to request euthanasia, as should the patient not be forced into making such a decision; this must be decided by both clinician and patient.

Many people in the UK resort to slowly starving themselves to death, as explained by Paul Lamb (2020). Paul was a man having been paralyzed from the neck down due to a car accident in 1990 had applied for the ‘right-to-die case’ in 2014 and lost his case. He believes the courts have condemned his life to one of never-ending pain and explains how not legalizing euthanasia in the UK takes away the last bit of his freedom of choice – how he wishes to die, with dignity and no suffering. Another campaigner living with lifelong illnesses who also wants to legalize euthanasia is Noel Conway (2021). Noel suffered from motor neuron disease and only had slight movement in one hand, his head, and some of his neck. His case was one of the highest-profile cases to attempt to make a change in the law of euthanasia in the UK. His case was denied, and he was left with one only option to enable him to die with dignity; ‘effective suffocation’. Noel died after removing his ventilator, seeing this as his only option. Campaigners like Lamb (2020) and Conway (2021) have been campaigning for the legalization of euthanasia in agreement with Irwin (2013) with people having the freedom of choice however, Richard Doerflinger (2017) would argue that campaigners are campaigning for suicide rather than euthanasia or physician-assisted dying. He believes that euthanasia does not end a person’s pain, it simply passes the pain and suffering onto other people who may be seen as living a life that is worthless the slippery slope. He believes that legalizing euthanasia will ultimately undermine the doctors’ willingness to show compassion and aid in the relief of pain in patients. He believes that palliative care is a real help to people with terminally ill conditions. Richard states ‘In states that have legalized assisted suicide: not due to pain (or even fear of future pain), but due to concerns like ‘loss of dignity and ’becoming a burden on others” and argues that clinicians should be making the patient feel privileged and happy they are in a place of care and ensuring they reiterate that they are not a burden, but a joy to care for as long as they may need. Legalizing euthanasia could remove all protection for humans.

Doctors have a role in which they always have the patient’s best interest at heart. They hold a moral compass as well as are regulated by the General Medical Council (GMC). Doctors have the legal obligation to do the best for patients without causing harm but sometimes this can prove difficult. Sometimes doctors must give patients drugs to help ease their pain which would mean the physician is knowingly shortening the patient’s life, such as Morphine. A doctor could be unwilling to part take in euthanasia so they do not jeopardize their professional and moral role however, many doctors would disagree and say that euthanasia of a terminally ill person would, in fact, be humane. Tooley (1995) provides an argument that is in support of legalizing euthanasia and that it is in fact not morally wrong. He provides 11 points as to why it would be morally right to end someone’s life through euthanasia. He says that sometimes it is in the best interest of some patients with an incurable illness to end their life with the help of a physician however, the Doctrine of Double Effect states otherwise, as described by Robert Wheeler. Wheeler explains a case where euthanasia took place by the clinician who was subsequently convicted for the use of the Doctrine of Double effects. The doctrine explains that the double effect is where a clinician uses drugs of a higher dose to help ease the pain but by doing so they are knowingly shortening their life by doing so.

To conclude, there are many arguments for and against legalizing euthanasia for terminally ill people in the UK. I have found there is more evidence leading to the argument, as described in this assignment. Terminally ill people appear to be more pro than clinicians, who worry about the effect it would have on their registration and their moral beliefs. Doctors believe contemporary palliative care should be helping terminally ill people to live their remaining time pain-free and be made to feel like they are worthy of life and not an earlier death. Physicians have a moral belief and a law they abide by to disagree with legalizing euthanasia in the UK, whereas terminally ill patients believe they should have the opportunity to die with dignity and have the choice to do so.

Imagine you have been diagnosed with a chronic illness with excruciating side effects. You are unable to eat, sleep, or walk without overwhelming pain. The doctors say you have under six months left to live and you know that you will spend that time suffering. You no longer have the desire to live and begin considering euthanasia. But what actually is euthanasia? Is it morally permissible? Who all will be affected by your decision?

Euthanasia is defined as “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma.” (Lexico, 2019.) Euthanasia is illegal in many places, and in most places that it has been legalized, it involves many rules and regulations. In this paper, I will argue that James Rachels is correct when saying that euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible depending on the circumstance (The Ethical Life, 252.)

Euthanasia has become an extreme question of moral judgment as many people fall within three groups: those who are pro-euthanasia, those who are anti-euthanasia, and those who believe that euthanasia is okay under certain circumstances. Each viewpoint has its own arguments and reasons why euthanasia is permissible or impermissible.

Those who are pro-euthanasia tend to hold such arguments: humans have the right to live, so, therefore, they have the right to die, death is a private matter, it does not physically harm others, and overall it can save a great amount of pain, suffering, and money. Those who are anti-euthanasia typically hold arguments that include: euthanasia allows people to disvalue the lives of those who are sick and disabled, voluntary euthanasia may eventually lead to involuntary euthanasia, it may lead to doctors pressuring people into euthanasia, and the regulations of euthanasia may be ineffective. People who believe that it is permissible under certain circumstances may look at such details to determine if they believe it is permissible: how old the person is, their disease or situation if they are of sound mind, and if other options do not relieve the suffering.

I believe that euthanasia is morally permissible in certain situations. The career I am going into as well as my current job, has had a great influence on my opinion. Currently, I work as a certified nurse aide in a nursing and rehabilitation center. During my time as a C.N.A., I have cared for many people when they are nearing the end of their life. Often times the waiting and watching of a patient dying is extremely hard for the family as well as the medical providers. It is hard to predict the exact amount of time the person has left, so families often spend days, weeks, or even months waiting and dreading the moment their loved one will pass. As the patient’s body begins to shut down from the inside, it becomes very obvious on the outside how much pain and suffering they are enduring.

Like many people who also believe euthanasia is sometimes permissible, I focus on the details of the specific situation to determine what I think is right. Often times my opinion is based on a number of things: how old the patient is, if they are in their right mind and can make a sound decision and if there are any other options that could be successful for alleviating the pain. Often times if the person is a child, mentally ill, or depressed I believe their request for euthanasia should not be permitted.

In the United States, euthanasia is not legally permitted but, in some states, physician-assisted suicide is. The distinction between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is who delivers the lethal dose or injection. For euthanasia, the doctor is the one to deliver the dose. However, in physician-assisted suicide, the doctor supplies all the lethal products but the patient must be the one to do the final action. For example, the doctor can provide lethal doses of certain pills, but the patient has to be the one to actually pick them up and take them for it to be legal. The requirements in most states for P.A.S. are the patient must be U.S. resident, must be at least 18 years of age, must have six or less months to live, and must have two oral requests from different physicians at least 15-20 days apart. (ProCon, 2019.) In my opinion, such guidelines could be very reasonable and successful for euthanasia as well.

With regards to who will be affected by euthanasia, I think the main person in mind is the patient themselves. The family of course will be affected emotionally, but regardless if their loved one dies today or three months from now, they will have to grieve. In reality, euthanasia may benefit the family to some extent as well regarding their circumstance. If they are there day in and day out watching their loved ones suffer, they will have a huge emotional toll taken out on them and will end up being drained. Also, if they are financially responsible for the loved one, the treatments for an incurable disease and end-of-life care could be extremely expensive and ineffective. It may seem harsh to say, but truthfully family members can benefit from euthanasia as well.

In James Rachels’ proposal, “The Morality of Euthanasia,” he gives an outline of how to determine if euthanasia is morally permissible. His guidelines are as follows:

1. If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one’s rights, then that action is morally acceptable.
2. In at least some cases, active euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one’s rights.
3. Therefore, in at least some cases, active euthanasia is morally acceptable.” (The Ethical Life, 256.)

I believe that this guideline gives a reasonable view on how to regard euthanasia. Euthanasia as Rachels points out, may not always promote happiness in everyone, it does however eliminate some misery which “is a very strong reason in its favor.” (The Ethical Life, 255.)

There are some situations that I believe euthanasia is not morally permissible. One example is if euthanization began to be forced upon patients for whatever reason. If physicians were to persuade people into euthanasia for various reasons, such as organ donation or because their life had “no value,” I would believe that euthanasia is morally impermissible. If doctors simply began euthanizing patients without any warning or reason, it would also be extremely unacceptable.

In the proposal, “The Survival Lottery,” John Harris gives an example of two patients, one needing a heart transplant and the other needing a lung transplant. (The Ethical Life, 258-266.) His proposition is to assign everyone in society a lottery number, and someone will be chosen at random to be euthanized and donate their organs. Harris’ argument is that saving two or more lives is greater than the death of the donor, so therefore morally permissible. I, however, disagree with Harris. People have the right to life and should be able to choose whether or not they die and donate their organs. This form of forced euthanasia is very much comparable to murder.

Some may argue that euthanasia is too hard to regulate and could eventually give doctors too much power. If euthanasia were to be legalized throughout the United States, there would be laws, regulations, and possibly a committee put in place to help govern the decisions and use of euthanasia. As with any other medical regulation, there will be those who break them and face serious consequences. Medical malpractice can cause physicians to lose their reputation among communities as well as their medical licenses. In any situation, there will be such risks of a bad egg in the batch, but in this situation, I believe it would be highly unlikely.

Overall, I do not think doctors will begin euthanizing people without consent because of one main reason: money. The cost of keeping someone on end-of-life care is much more expensive compared to euthanizing the patient, therefore allowing the doctor to make a greater profit. The average cost of end-of-life care is around $60,000 during the last year of life and may vary based on the type of care given and whether the patient is at home or in a facility. (Health Affairs, 2017.) The cost of a lethal dose in powder form is approximately $400 to $500. (ProCon, n.d.) This may lead to the argument that doctors will begin refusing euthanization, but protocols in place and the need for approval from more than one doctor can help prevent this issue. If euthanization were to be legalized, there would have to be a system of checks and balances to prevent such issues on either side.

In conclusion, euthanasia is morally permissible in certain situations. Euthanasia is a very difficult topic to think about as we often want to keep our loved ones with us as long as we possibly can. However, in some situations, euthanasia is a way to alleviate pain and suffering that cannot be done otherwise. Some forms of euthanasia and reasons for euthanasia create a morally impermissible situation. If euthanasia were to be legalized there would have to be a great deal of rules and regulations put in place to prevent the misuse and refusal of euthanasia.

Resources:

1. Can Doctors Still Practice After a Medical Malpractice Lawsuit? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.wkw.com/medical-malpractice/faqs/doctors-lose-license-medical-malpractice-lawsuit/.
2. French, E. B., EJ, E., Aldridge, Riley, JE, B., Hoover, … Mitchell SL. (2017, July 1). End-Of-Life Medical Spending In Last Twelve Months Of Life Is Lower Than Previously Reported. Retrieved from https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0174.
3. Harris, John. “The Survival Lottery.” The Ethical Life: Fundamental Readings in Ethics and Moral Problems, edited by Russ Shafer-Landau, Oxford University Press, 2018, pp.258-266.
4. How Much Do Physician-Assisted Suicide Drugs Cost? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://euthanasia.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=002166.
5. Rachels, James. “The Morality of Euthanasia.” The Ethical Life: Fundamental Readings in Ethics and Moral Problems, edited by Russ Shafer- Landau, Oxford University Press, 2018, pp.252-257.
6. States with Legal Physician-Assisted Suicide. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000132.
7. What is the Difference Between Assisted Dying and Euthanasia? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.worldrtd.net/qanda/what-difference-between-assisted-dying-and-euthanasia.
8. Writer, A. M. F. S. (n.d.). End-of-life Options – Hospice Costs & Who Pays for Care. Retrieved from https://www.debt.org/medical/hospice-costs/.

Introduction

Euthanasia, a common term used for assisted death, refers to the process where a person’s life is taken so as to end their pain and suffering. The term is derived from the Greek word meaning good death (Patil, 2013). The moral consequences attached to such an act can become quite complicated. Philosophical debates on the matter have been prevalent since olden Greek times, with both views for and against the act being prevalent (Landry, Foreman, and Kekewich, 2015). There are philosophers who believe that the right to ending one’s life is in their own hands, while others contend that it is morally unacceptable. Immanuel Kant was one of the philosophers who were against assisted death, which is the view that will be discussed further. The aim of the paper is to provide an argument against physician-assisted death, keeping in mind the contentions of Kant.

There generally exist two forms of assisted death: Active and passive. Passive assisted death constitutes simply removing the individual from the circumstances that could be aiding in their staying life. For instance, a person’s life support would be switched off to let them pass on peacefully, as it was only the medical instruments keeping him/her alive (Landry, Foreman, and Kekewich, 2015). In the case of active physician-assisted death, the person is provided with a means to end their life, which is generally done through overdosing on drugs or simply being provided a lethal drug (Landry, Foreman, and Kekewich, 2015). In most cases, the physician is the one who aids the process. For that to work, the person who wishes to end their life must actually be of sound mental health and capable of making such a decision on their own, while also being at a stage where the illness or disability is terminal.

Assisted death is essentially the painless act of putting one out of their misery by letting them die, in the case of them having an incurable disease or being terminal. The act is painless, intentional, and only meant for those who will be dying sooner or later, and only wish to speed up the process to forego the pain (Banovic, Turanjanin, and Miloradovic, 2017). Moreover, assisted death is carried out only in the case of the terminal diagnosis being a hundred percent accurate, with the pain being unbearable.

Religious and Philosophical Perspectives on Euthanasia

Proponents of euthanasia use the terminology “right to die” to debate that individuals hold a right to die off. They are under extreme pain that will ultimately lead to death in any case. Though death is an inevitable aspect for the human body given its vulnerability and constantly being in the process of aging, and perhaps it can be delayed or hastened but never forced. Death is inevitable, explicit, indispensable, and is a universal singularity that is an axiom for all living things on this planet.

Proponents of euthanasia also debate that in certain antediluvian societies suicide was not illegal, yet they forget that it was always frowned upon. Moreover, decriminalization of suicide or an assisted form of it is not bringing about any rights of dying by suicide. If a right like that existed in a society, then rationalism says that there also exists a duty for individuals to not provide treatment to those who have attempted suicide. In essence, if people have a right to choosing suicide, then a correlative obligation also exists to not prevent people from making that decision.

The promoters of euthanasia give stores of significant worth to people’s right to independence and self-assurance. Regard for self-rule and autonomy is the primary necessity recorded in the standards made fitting by biomedical ethicists. It alludes to an individual’s entitlement to self-decide in each activity. It is the characteristic right of an individual to settle on choices dependent on their developments of what is correct, what is wrong, what is suitable, and what isn’t. The independent individual self-shapes the preeminent principle. It overwhelms the social self; the self that frames relations to other individuals, family, and networks. Self-rule is likewise the right that sees triumph over all other rights. It renders unsettled many commitments, responsibilities, or contemplations which may harm or hurt the individual included.

The longing to ascribe essential significance to self-rule might appeal at first sight, and no specialist taught in the moral zeitgeist which is obviously, persistent focused would set out damage somebody’s self-rule or self-assurance by ignoring or affronting their entitlement to settle on close to home decisions. It would be akin to tyranny which is seen by progressives as an intolerable off-base. Besides, the procedure by which autonomy or self-rule is executed or rehearsed in medication or in-law is through the approach of educated assent.

It requests that the patient be completely mindful of everything being equal, damages, advantages, or potential fatalities associated with the proposed strategy and its sensible options. In a consistent result, the patient looking for euthanasia must be educated or offered full satisfactory palliative therapeutic consideration. In addition, the patient must be totally rationally skilled, and in this way, assent must be deliberate; free from pressure, a worry of impact. In the event of terminally ill patients, who more often than not look for willful extermination, their conditions are rarely satisfied.

Assisted death is basically assisted suicide and is seen as being wrong in general. But, it is evident that certain scenarios may encourage a person to change their stance on the matter. Among the adverse consequences of assisted death is that we are not living in this world in isolation. Rather, we have relationships with other people; people who are close to us and whom we would be hurting through such an act. By opting for such a death, we would be preventing the fulfillment of our obligations towards those people (Quill, Back, and Block, 2016). Moreover, if assisted death was made permissible, then there would automatically be a rise in the number of such deaths, which in turn will increase the level of sadness among those that are left behind.

There are plenty of arguments that are in support of physician-assisted death, and they are quite powerful in their own right. But, Kant’s viewpoint is reliant on a completely diverse thought process and brings forth a contention that is even more powerful than the counterarguments provided (Battin, Rhodes, and Silvers, 2015). We must not forget that life is a privilege that must not be brought to an end willingly, and not even physicians have the right to assist a person in the process.

Evaluation of Different Ethical Perspectives

In the final analysis, there are several ethical issues that fail to be addressed in the debate of euthanasia legality. The effect and unintentional penalties of making euthanasia legal in medicine and in legal institutions are simply unrelenting. Additionally, the inquiry emerges; in what capacity will the legitimization of euthanasia and its training in regular medicinal for change the ethos of biomedicine? The dangers are tremendous and grave in nature, maybe even vast. What will happen to the reasoning and basic leadership procedure of the doctors engaged with euthanasia or assisted suicide? Given that, in the wake of legitimizing suicide, the training will come into the schedule, and a particular plausibility remains that passing will turn into an insignificant issue and the avenues of mindful medicinal consideration will stay unexplored and overlooked.

In addition, what will be the intolerable, destructive reactions on the general public for tolerating the language of euthanasia? They state, the language one uses reflects reality as well as develops it. A language loaded with a code word for euthanasia will just add to the battles to recognize a genuine north on the ethical compass of the therapeutic field. In spite of the fact, that religion used to be the rule transporter of ethics and regard for life in the milieu yet in mainstream social orders, this obligation has fallen on the shoulders of law and medicine as esteem making, conveying, and outcome shaping structures of the general public (Patil, 2013). The law disallows suicide and specialists make a vow not to dispense it. Their ideas should never be repealed or neglected while authorizing willful extermination. For willful extermination is helped murder. It is, in the end, hurtful for people, particularly powerless individuals, doctors, the organizations of lawyers and doctors, and the general public. Besides, the healing job of specialists and euthanasia are shafts separated, and they are poles apart.

Ethical Self Awareness

Killing someone is basically wrong, no matter how we look at it, and euthanasia is more or less the same thing for a lot of people. Even so, there can arise a variety of circumstances in one’s life where they feel as if they would be better off dead. For instance, a bedridden individual is unable to do anything apart from lying in bed all day for eternity (Battin, Rhodes, and Silvers, 2015). Questions are bound to be raised in their mind about simply ending it because they are not really living life in any case (Battin, Rhodes, and Silvers, 2015). In such a scenario, let the person die might actually be seen as a good deed. But life holds a lot of value, so all the controversial elements attached to assisted death have a lot of relevance.

There exist philosophical points of view on the basis of which the ethics concerned with an act are judged only through the outcomes. Considering that, we can say that assisted death is a moral act due to the advantages that come about. As a result, i.e., no more pain. But you will no longer be able to feel anything once the act is done (Battin, Rhodes, and Silvers, 2015). The viewpoint of Kant differs from the utilitarian perspective. Just because assisted death may have a positive outcome, does not justify the act. The act matters more than its outcome.

Conclusion

Life is a gift, and every human being has the right to live as they wish to. Having that said, the right to take away one’s life can be considered justified under some circumstances. Cases where adults demand euthanasia under severe physical pain or painful treatments may be allowed after careful psychiatric evaluation. But suicide under mental instability is not an appreciated act. Considering the high suicidal trends in the U.S., there is a dire need of mental illness awareness programs to be carried out, to create an awakening in the people so they can help those in need. Depression is called a silent killer, but the sufferer shows certain patterns that can be identified. Such patients do not seek help, and hence the awareness among their surroundings can help save their lives.

If humanity is based on moral reasoning, then committing an immoral act is implying that physician-assisted death is contradicting humanity itself. Suicide or assisted death is a contradiction. According to Kant, the significance of one’s life is nothing in comparison to the significance of morality. Kant’s view is quite diverse when it comes to assisted death, but he remains adamant about the fact that such an act should not be permissible on account of the fact that it ultimately goes against the concept of humanity and brings more pain for those around the individual. Happiness or depression is not what matters here. Rather, it is about being autonomous and humane, which serve as much better values in comparison to what makes one happy and we should look at the scenario from that perspective.

It is suggested that the use of euthanasia must not be legalized as it will give people an unethical way to end their lives. The healthcare professionals must be trained in a more specific manner for a particular class of diseased people so that it is not come to them asking for euthanasia in any case. The use of euthanasia is highly opposed. Everyone has the right to die when their real-time comes, and not when they think they must leave the world. Life is a gift that must be appreciated, even if it is on a bed. The presence of a person can mean a lot to people. The people would have their loved ones with them, even if it means being on a chair or a bed.

Introduction

Euthanasia, the deliberate act of ending another’s life, often in cases of extreme suffering and with the individual’s consent, remains one of the most contentious ethical dilemmas in modern society. Ethical theories such as Kantianism and Utilitarianism offer contrasting perspectives on the moral permissibility of euthanasia. While Utilitarianism justifies euthanasia based on its consequences in maximizing overall happiness, Kantianism rejects it due to the violation of categorical imperatives. However, both theories exhibit significant flaws in their reasoning, making the resolution of euthanasia a complex ethical issue.

Utilitarianism’s Perspective on Euthanasia

Utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical theory, prioritizes promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. In the context of euthanasia, Utilitarianism emphasizes the consequences of the action over the motives behind it. From a Utilitarian standpoint, euthanasia can be justified if it leads to the reduction of suffering and the increase in overall happiness. In cases where individuals are experiencing unbearable pain with no prospect of improvement, euthanasia is seen as a compassionate act that maximizes overall well-being.

Kantianism’s Perspective on Euthanasia

Kantianism, in contrast, focuses on moral duties derived from rational principles, particularly the categorical imperative. According to Kantian ethics, euthanasia is not morally permissible as it violates the principle of treating individuals as ends in themselves, rather than as means to an end. Killing another person, even with their consent and to alleviate suffering, undermines the intrinsic value of human life and contradicts the moral duty to respect human dignity. From a Kantian perspective, euthanasia is inherently immoral regardless of its consequences.

Critique of Utilitarianism’s Position

While Utilitarianism offers a pragmatic approach to euthanasia by prioritizing the reduction of suffering, its reliance on predicting consequences poses significant flaws. The predictability of outcomes in euthanasia cases is uncertain, leading to potential unforeseen consequences. For instance, misdiagnoses or unexpected recoveries could occur, challenging the Utilitarian calculus of maximizing overall happiness. Additionally, Utilitarianism’s sole focus on consequences overlooks important moral considerations such as individual rights and autonomy.

Critique of Kantianism’s Position

Kantianism’s absolutist stance against euthanasia fails to adequately consider the compassionate intentions and contextual nuances of end-of-life decisions. By strictly adhering to the categorical imperative and prohibiting all forms of killing, Kantian ethics neglects the suffering of individuals and the complexities of their situations. Furthermore, Kantianism’s rigid application of moral principles overlooks the importance of empathy and situational ethics in ethical decision-making.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the debate over euthanasia in Kantianism vs Utilitarianism highlights the complexity of ethical reasoning in addressing end-of-life issues. While Utilitarianism justifies euthanasia based on its consequences and potential to alleviate suffering, Kantianism rejects it on grounds of violating moral duties and human dignity. However, both theories exhibit flaws in their reasoning, emphasizing the need for a nuanced ethical approach that considers both consequences and moral principles. Ultimately, euthanasia remains a challenging social-ethical problem requiring careful consideration of individual rights, compassion, and human dignity.

Imagine, as you are living your happy, healthy life, you find out you have been diagnosed with a disease and soon become terminally ill. You are told that for the rest of your life you cannot walk, let alone move, and you find it hard to communicate with your family and friends. You need to be fed through a tube, and you find it difficult to breathe, therefore must wear a ventilator 20 hours a day, and if you stop wearing the ventilator, you only have weeks to live. In the hardest battle of your life to survive, you should be allowed to choose to give up if you do not wish to die in suffering. The right to die should be a matter of personal choice, and if incapable of suicide, you should have the right to be assisted in your own death.

Diane Pretty was a former patient of mine, diagnosed with motor neuron disease (MND), which is the name given to a group of diseases in which these neurons fail to work normally. Muscles then gradually weaken and waste, as neurons degenerate and die. After 2 years of battling the disease, Diane decided to stop artificial ventilation, knowing what the future held if she decided to do so. Her only wish was to die without suffering, in the comfort of her own home, with her friends and family. But due to the nature of her illness, she was physically incapable to do so. Therefore, to fulfil her wishes she would have needed assistance. Which is illegal in most countries, Diane spent her last few months fighting legal issues in court, but being unsuccessful as she passed away in hospital.

Throughout my medical career, I’ve had many patients ask me to help hasten their death. While a few have moved in their final months to places where assisted suicide is legal, most could not relocate. “It is not up to doctors to decide what my suffering is”, Diane and many patients told me, as Diane chose palliative care whilst in her final years, wishing she had the choice to end her own life in the final months despite excellent palliative care and hospice care. As a doctor, I was deeply affected by every patient’s request I have come across. But I understand why my patients wanted to end their life, they want to die in dignity, not pain. It should be their choice to decide when and where to die, but the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 state that euthanasia is illegal in all states and territories in Australia and may result in a person being charged with murder, manslaughter or assisting suicide.

To deny a person’s wish to die with dignity also denies them their personal autonomy and is an act that is trespassing on someone’s humanity. Euthanasia should be available as an option to people, especially for people who are terminally ill. Many anti-euthanasia proponents believe that euthanasia is immoral as life should be preserved and protected, but in my opinion, it is immoral to demand of another person to continue living a life of suffering and to remove the right for someone to choose when to die.

They say that our bodies are our own, and we should be allowed to do what we want with them. So, it’s wrong to make anyone live longer than they want. In fact, making people continue living when they don’t want to is violating their human rights and freedom. Euthanasia doesn’t technically affect others, it’s not their body, it simply is not their choice. But seeing your loved ones dying a slow and painful death, with nothing you can do to help them, now this will affect us.

The Times (24 January 2007) stated that, according to the 2007 British Social Attitudes Survey, 80% of the public said they wanted the law changed to give terminally ill patients the right to die with a doctor’s help. If 80% of the public want this law to be changed, what is stopping it? Because euthanasia is immoral and inhumane? I hope to always provide compassionate care for each of our dying patients so they can end the last chapter of their lives without suffering, they’re choice should be they’re choice. Everyone has a right to a good death, therefore, a good death must not be denied to those who want one.

Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing, or the action of bringing an end to a person’s life via a medical procedure to get rid of the suffering from a painful or incurable disease. In this literature review, we will be focusing on the people’s rights regarding euthanasia and the perspective of healthcare professionals towards it. In addition to this, we will be weighing the pros and cons of euthanasia followed by the religious and ethical considerations.

A lot of debate has been going on if euthanasia should be everyone’s right but (Willingham, 2017) states that mental illness would not provide valid grounds for taking one’s own life. In contrast, patients with depression or schizophrenia in Belgium have the right to euthanasia (Thienpont et al., 2015), and in some jurisdictions, euthanasia is approved by legislators even for patients with non-terminal illnesses (Kim, De Vries, & Peteet, 2016). While we are constantly working hard to make this world a better place, the concept of taking one’s own life has been introduced in society which has become a topic of debate questioning the validity of the concept and if it should be legalized and made everyone’s right. The issue under review is if euthanasia is everyone’s right or not, and by the end of this literature review, will cover a number of perspectives on this topic and provide a wider view.

Euthanasia has been fairly debated on the basis of its merits and demerits. As many people are in favor of Euthanasia, it is being legalized throughout the world. Research conducted over the decades has depicted that the citizens of most nations support the legalization of euthanasia (Cohen, Van Landeghem, Carpentier, & Deliens, et al 2014). It has been found that the major reasons why patients consider euthanasia is due to their fear of losing control and being a burden on the family. (Robinson, 2017) states that we need to make the public understand that making euthanasia legal does not mean one person killing another, it means giving people a moral choice of dying with dignity, which is the very core of democracy. Euthanasia is for the benefit of the patient, it would be inhuman and grievous to put them through the intolerable torment. A person under such an illness where viable treatment would not make their situation better, ought to be given the freedom to pick initiated death. The word ‘euthanasia’ is originally derived from ancient Greek meaning good (eu) death (Thanatos). Another evident side benefit to this is that the bed space taken by a patient showing no signs or hopes of improvement could free up expensive equipment, bed, and intensive care for someone who could make better use of it. Assisting death in no way precludes giving the best palliative care possible but rather integrates compassionate care and respect for the patient’s autonomy. Euthanasia is the most controversial and yearning theme of logical research which is on the very edge of medication and law. In today’s world, there is no single way to deal with the perspectives of euthanasia.

With all the merits that come with the establishment of euthanasia, there are a number of unignorable demerits. With ethical considerations, mercy killing is not justified. With euthanasia, comes the corruption of the worst kind. Documentation for cases of euthanasia is a legal requirement. Schuklenk, U. (2015). Claims that pediatric euthanasia is corrupt and inaccurate. He provided the statistics that patient consent in euthanasia was documented in 12% of unreported cases and just 72% of reported cases. Insurance companies could use euthanasia as a way to save money on people by not having to pay for intensive care and expensive equipment and medicines. In addition to this, doctors could start seeing euthanasia as a way out. This could tamper with their dedication and effort into each patient and could become an easy way out. Even if the patient wanted to opt for euthanasia, there could be an external factor influencing the decision such as pressure from the family, or the family’s motive to inherit the property, or taking control over business. Euthanasia devalues human life. Patients could misuse it as much as doctors as both parties could consider it as a solution to any hardship or critical situation.

Furthermore, ethical violations are increasing in the form of underreporting, protocol mishandling, and conflicts of interest. A social debate on this issue has been stretched out regarding the involvement of euthanasia in bioethics and religion. Mostly all religions condemn euthanasia as the majority of religions have very strict views on taking lives, especially your own. It is viewed as the ultimate sin against god. In religion and ethics, the sanctity of life is a principle of implied protection regarding aspects of life. Life is considered a gift of god and is forbidden to take your own life. Is euthanasia murder? Christianity follows 10 commandments, the most important one being ‘do not commit murder’. If someone’s life is taken away earlier than god planned, then it is considered murder. The ethical consideration of ‘autonomy’ in healthcare professionals meaning ‘patient’s right to informed consent’ and nonmaleficence meaning ‘do no harm’ directly contradicts the religious point of view as euthanasia could actually be the better option in a situation where the patient is suffering badly.

References:

1. Ay, M. A., & Öz, F. (2019). Nurses attitudes towards death, dying patients and euthanasia: A descriptive study. Nursing Ethics, 26(5), 1442–1457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733017748481
2. Levin, K., Bradley, G. L., & Duffy, A. (2018). Attitudes Toward Euthanasia for Patients Who Suffer From Physical or Mental Illness. Omega, 30222818754667. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030222818754667
3. Güell, E., Ramos, A., Zertuche, T., & Pascual, A. (2015). Verbalized desire for death or euthanasia in advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care, 13(2), 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951514000121
4. Mahmoud Khaled Al Hamarsheh, & Majd Mrayyan. (2018). Cancer Patients Who Elect Euthanasia as an Option: An Argumentative Essay. Middle East Journal of Cancer, 9(3), 253–258.
5. Coggon, J. (2013). The Wonder of Euthanasia: A Debate that’s Being Done to Death. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 33(2), 401–419. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqs030
6. Robinson, Ian. (2017). Why you should vote to legalize euthanasia, even if you oppose it yourself: A defense of personal choice. Australian Rationalist, The, 106, 7-8.
7. Coombs, M. A. (2016). Treatment withdrawal, allowing a natural death, passive euthanasia: a careful choice of words. Nursing in Critical Care, 21(4), 193–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12247
8. R. O. Stefanchuk, A. O. Yanchuk, M. М. Stefanchuk, M. О. Stefanchuk, & N. Ye. Blazhivska. (2018). The right to euthanasia: for or against? Patologìâ, 15(3), 390–395. https://doi.org/10.14739/2310-1237.2018.3.151873
9. Schuklenk, U. (2015). The ethical case against assisted euthanasia has not been made. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 149(6), 1685–1686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.02.010
10. Abdi Omar Shuriye. (2012). Ethical And Religious Analysis On Euthanasia. International Islamic University Malaysia Engineering Journal, 12(5), 209–211. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumej.v12i5.26

Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing, or the action of bringing an end to a person’s life via a medical procedure to get rid of the suffering from a painful or incurable disease. In this literature review, we will be focusing on the people’s rights regarding euthanasia and the perspective of healthcare professionals towards it. In addition to this, we will be weighing the pros and cons of euthanasia followed by the religious and ethical considerations.

A lot of debate has been going on if euthanasia should be everyone’s right but (Willingham, 2017) states that mental illness would not provide valid grounds for taking one’s own life. In contrast, patients with depression or schizophrenia in Belgium have the right to euthanasia (Thienpont et al., 2015), and in some jurisdictions, euthanasia is approved by legislators even for patients with non-terminal illnesses (Kim, De Vries, & Peteet, 2016). While we are constantly working hard to make this world a better place, the concept of taking one’s own life has been introduced in society which has become a topic of debate questioning the validity of the concept and if it should be legalized and made everyone’s right. The issue under review is if euthanasia is everyone’s right or not, and by the end of this literature review, will cover a number of perspectives on this topic and provide a wider view.

Euthanasia has been fairly debated on the basis of its merits and demerits. As many people are in favor of Euthanasia, it is being legalized throughout the world. Research conducted over the decades has depicted that the citizens of most nations support the legalization of euthanasia (Cohen, Van Landeghem, Carpentier, & Deliens, et al 2014). It has been found that the major reasons why patients consider euthanasia is due to their fear of losing control and being a burden on the family. (Robinson, 2017) states that we need to make the public understand that making euthanasia legal does not mean one person killing another, it means giving people a moral choice of dying with dignity, which is the very core of democracy. Euthanasia is for the benefit of the patient, it would be inhuman and grievous to put them through the intolerable torment. A person under such an illness where viable treatment would not make their situation better, ought to be given the freedom to pick initiated death. The word ‘euthanasia’ is originally derived from ancient Greek meaning good (eu) death (Thanatos). Another evident side benefit to this is that the bed space taken by a patient showing no signs or hopes of improvement could free up expensive equipment, bed, and intensive care for someone who could make better use of it. Assisting death in no way precludes giving the best palliative care possible but rather integrates compassionate care and respect for the patient’s autonomy. Euthanasia is the most controversial and yearning theme of logical research which is on the very edge of medication and law. In today’s world, there is no single way to deal with the perspectives of euthanasia.

With all the merits that come with the establishment of euthanasia, there are a number of unignorable demerits. With ethical considerations, mercy killing is not justified. With euthanasia, comes the corruption of the worst kind. Documentation for cases of euthanasia is a legal requirement. Schuklenk, U. (2015). Claims that pediatric euthanasia is corrupt and inaccurate. He provided the statistics that patient consent in euthanasia was documented in 12% of unreported cases and just 72% of reported cases. Insurance companies could use euthanasia as a way to save money on people by not having to pay for intensive care and expensive equipment and medicines. In addition to this, doctors could start seeing euthanasia as a way out. This could tamper with their dedication and effort into each patient and could become an easy way out. Even if the patient wanted to opt for euthanasia, there could be an external factor influencing the decision such as pressure from the family, or the family’s motive to inherit the property, or taking control over business. Euthanasia devalues human life. Patients could misuse it as much as doctors as both parties could consider it as a solution to any hardship or critical situation.

Furthermore, ethical violations are increasing in the form of underreporting, protocol mishandling, and conflicts of interest. A social debate on this issue has been stretched out regarding the involvement of euthanasia in bioethics and religion. Mostly all religions condemn euthanasia as the majority of religions have very strict views on taking lives, especially your own. It is viewed as the ultimate sin against god. In religion and ethics, the sanctity of life is a principle of implied protection regarding aspects of life. Life is considered a gift of god and is forbidden to take your own life. Is euthanasia murder? Christianity follows 10 commandments, the most important one being ‘do not commit murder’. If someone’s life is taken away earlier than god planned, then it is considered murder. The ethical consideration of ‘autonomy’ in healthcare professionals meaning ‘patient’s right to informed consent’ and nonmaleficence meaning ‘do no harm’ directly contradicts the religious point of view as euthanasia could actually be the better option in a situation where the patient is suffering badly.

References:

1. Ay, M. A., & Öz, F. (2019). Nurses attitudes towards death, dying patients and euthanasia: A descriptive study. Nursing Ethics, 26(5), 1442–1457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733017748481
2. Levin, K., Bradley, G. L., & Duffy, A. (2018). Attitudes Toward Euthanasia for Patients Who Suffer From Physical or Mental Illness. Omega, 30222818754667. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030222818754667
3. Güell, E., Ramos, A., Zertuche, T., & Pascual, A. (2015). Verbalized desire for death or euthanasia in advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care, 13(2), 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951514000121
4. Mahmoud Khaled Al Hamarsheh, & Majd Mrayyan. (2018). Cancer Patients Who Elect Euthanasia as an Option: An Argumentative Essay. Middle East Journal of Cancer, 9(3), 253–258.
5. Coggon, J. (2013). The Wonder of Euthanasia: A Debate that’s Being Done to Death. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 33(2), 401–419. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqs030
6. Robinson, Ian. (2017). Why you should vote to legalize euthanasia, even if you oppose it yourself: A defense of personal choice. Australian Rationalist, The, 106, 7-8.
7. Coombs, M. A. (2016). Treatment withdrawal, allowing a natural death, passive euthanasia: a careful choice of words. Nursing in Critical Care, 21(4), 193–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12247
8. R. O. Stefanchuk, A. O. Yanchuk, M. М. Stefanchuk, M. О. Stefanchuk, & N. Ye. Blazhivska. (2018). The right to euthanasia: for or against? Patologìâ, 15(3), 390–395. https://doi.org/10.14739/2310-1237.2018.3.151873
9. Schuklenk, U. (2015). The ethical case against assisted euthanasia has not been made. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 149(6), 1685–1686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.02.010
10. Abdi Omar Shuriye. (2012). Ethical And Religious Analysis On Euthanasia. International Islamic University Malaysia Engineering Journal, 12(5), 209–211. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumej.v12i5.26