Euthanasia
Euthanasia originated in England during the 18th century, during a period in which it was commonly known as good death. It mainly involved at that time a situation in which a doctor induces the death of a patient who has suffered unrelievably through lethal injection upon the persistent request of such a patient. This class of death does not however include cases of suicide whether rational or irrational. Murder or forced killing of another person does not also qualify as euthanasia (MedicineNet 2001).
Euthanasia has persistently been a very controversial ethical issue, and continues to draw a lot of controversy. Quite varied positions are being taken whenever there are debates on euthanasia. The most common positions that are arise on euthanasia debates include enthusiastic advocacy of euthanasia, guarded acceptance of euthanasia, outright rejection of euthanasia, and vehement condemnation of euthanasia. This controversy has seen several countries across the globe either silently condemn or simply remain silent on this matter. Indeed, it is only in Netherlands that euthanasia is legally accepted and is thus openly practiced (MedicineNet 2001).
There have been cases in which medical errors committed by physicians have been simply passed as euthanasia. It is therefore important to clarify that there is no euthanasia unless the death in question is intentionally caused by what was done or not done. This means that the medical cases that normally pass as passive euthanasia do not fall under the category of euthanasia since there is lack of intention to take life. These medical cases include failure to commence treatment that would not provide benefit to the patient, withdrawal of treatment that has been shown to be ineffective, too burdensome or simply unwanted. Administering high doses of pain-killers that may possibly endanger life when they have been shown to be necessary do not also qualify as euthanasia (MedicineNet 2001).
Background of the Problem Euthanasia and its related practice have dominated ethical debates and arguments for quite a long period of time. This is because though the matter is legislatively prohibited, there are unresolved issues that should actually be addressed. The key areas of controversy include questions revolving around the extent to which euthanasia is ethically permissible, what the act definition is, whether the practice should be totally abolished, and whether a request by a patient should be ignored even under excruciating pain and deadly illness. These concerns have continued to dominate ethical debates and will continues to do so for quite some time.
Statement of the problem Euthanasia is the intentional act of taking away the life of a patient who either voluntarily request for such an action, or by a third party in the event in which such a patient is unable to make such decision. The question thus is to what extent is this ethically permissible. There are those who argue in favor of the practice while other argues against the practice. It is therefore prudent to examine both sides of this debate with a view of striking a common ground for these diverse opinions on euthanasia.
Justification for the study This study is justified given the rising cases of euthanasia, some of which have landed physicians on the wrong sides of the law yet they acted in good faith and upon the request of their patients. At the same time, throwing a blanket condemnation on the practice may not be justified since certain medical conditions may under all reasonable circumstances only call for euthanasia. However, there should be respect to human life and under no circumstance should a life be taken intentionally and prematurely. This research would thus form an important framework for a consensus between the pro-euthanasia activists and the anti-euthanasia activists.
Aims and Significance of the study The aims of this research are
To understand the concept of euthanasia.
To find out the circumstances under which euthanasia is practiced.
To make a distinction between euthanasia and cases of medical errors.
To establish the grounds for and against the practice within the ethical framework.
To come up with a common ground that would be acceptable to both the pro-euthanasia and anti-euthanasia lobbyists.
This study is significant since it will help bridge the gap on the diverse positions of enthusiastic advocacy, grounded acceptance, outright rejection, and vehement condemnation that currently dominate the euthanasia debate. It would be important that these diverse groups put their biases aside and come up with an understanding that would be useful to both physicians and patients that may require euthanasia in future.
Limitations of the Study Euthanasia is an ethical issue and thus the decision on whether to argue in support or to argue against the practice is to a greater extent dependent on an individuals ethical orientation. Ethical positions are often dogmatic and not based on empirical and sound reason. It is therefore very difficult to obtain purely honest opinion of persons on this topic and the responses would significantly be influenced by the ethical orientation of an individual.
Research Question The main research question is this paper is To what extent is the practice of euthanasia ethically permissible The research sub-questions include
What practices are classified as euthanasia
What practices are not classified as euthanasia
Is it justified to expressly deny a patient the right to determine the course of his life
Should ethics or medicine dominate the decision on euthanasia
Literature Review Euthanasia has been defined as the intentional taking away of a patients life by a physician by act or omission of a dependent person for their alleged benefit. However, cases in which death is not intended do not fall in the category of euthanasia. This means that the act or omission that has resulted into such death was unilaterally agreed upon between the patient and the physician under voluntary euthanasia, or was solely determined by the physician under circumstances in which the patient is not at a position to make a decision for the self. This later case is known as involuntary euthanasia (Euthanasia 2010).
Voluntary euthanasia is a situation is which a patient wants to die and says so. Under this class of euthanasia, the patient asks to be assisted with dying and refuses a burdensome medical treatment. This involves a request from the patient that no further medical treatment should be administered and any life-supporting machine be switched off. In extreme circumstances, the patient simply refuses to eat and passes away peacefully (Shavelson, 1995).
Non-voluntary euthanasia on the other hand involves a situation in which a patient is probably in a comma and cannot make his decision known. This are normally cases involving babies who cannot make a wish, senile persons, persons who are mentally retarded to very severe extents. People with brain damages and those that are mentally disturbed in a manner in which they need to be protected from themselves are also included in this category. (BBC Ethics Guide 2010).
However, a case in which a person wants to live though he is actually killed should not be classified as euthanasia even if such a person fits all the descriptions under voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. For example, a person who is trapped on a sky creeper that is on fire and the fire brigades are not on site. In the event that a passer-by pities such a person and shots him dead instead of letting him burn to death, such a case is considered murder or involuntary euthanasia (BBC Ethics Guide 2010).
The proponents for the practice of euthanasia have always supported their argument on the perceived benefits of this practice. It has been argued that euthanasia is a very important way of relieving extreme pain. The reasoning behind this fact is that it is better to take away life that let a patient to face extreme levels of pain. The other ground for euthanasia has been based on the fact that the practice comes as a relief when the quality of life of a patient is extremely low. This is mainly when a person is unable to perform for the self the most basic activities of life like sleeping, sitting, eating, and the like (Delury, 1997).
By taking away the life of a terminally ill patient, the medical funds that such a patient could have continued to consume without any long-term gain is freed to help others whose health can otherwise be saved. It is also said that the decision by an individual on whether to continue living under extreme health conditions is a matter of personal choice and should not be subjected to other persons opinions (Smith, 1997).
Euthanasia has however not been supported on the grounds that it is a way of devaluing human life. The argument here is that life is valuable in itself and should be respected in its own right. It is also argued that if this practice if allowed, others would use it as a way of containing health care costs by merely opting to take away their lives instead of incurring huge medical bills. The ethics of medical practice also prohibits physicians and other medical care persons from taking away life and such ethical oath should strictly be adhered to by the physicians. In the event that euthanasia is expressly legalized for only the terminally ill, it is possible that loopholes may be created in such legislation to allow other people to engage in this practice, or for the act to be un-voluntarily discharged by physicians (Hendin, 1997).
Methodology In a research undertaking the methodology section is one of the crucial areas to be tackled in a proposal document. This is due to the fact that it forms the basis of the results of research findings. A research can be faced with big challenges due to a wrong choice of the method to be used. To avoid this good planning of the method is essential and more in order to get reliable results.
Research Design The four categories of quality management in research will be highly considered. This include validity, reliability, ethics and rigor. Reliability of a research is its ability to have consistence in results. This will be done on controlling the sample by stratifying the population to get a more representative sample. Validity is the ability of a scale to measure what it is intended to measure but not going beyond the topic of the study.
Subjects This research sought the views of 200 respondents drawn from categories including 50 physicians, 50 religious leaders, 50 legal experts, and 50 patients. This was purposely done to give a reflection of views from quarters where concerns over euthanasia have continually drawn very sharp reactions.
Measures and data collection This research has utilized qualitative research method. Two hundred questionnaires were administered out of which 180 were duly completed and returned. This is a statistically significant sample size and thus validated the research findings. 42 physicians responded, 48 religious leaders responded, 46 legal experts responded, and 44 patients responded.
Results According to research findings, 75 of physicians supported the call for euthanasia, 20 of religious leaders were in favor, 68 of the legal experts voiced their support for the practice, and 81 of the patients favored this practice. On the question as to whether the opinion of a patient should be sought before undertaking euthanasia, 60 of physicians were in support, 90 of religious leaders were in support, 92 of legal experts supported voluntary euthanasia, while only 40 of patients felt that their consent should be obtained.
The research further sought views on whether euthanasia should be legalized or not. 78 of the physicians supported legalization, 20 of religious leaders were in support, 90 of legal experts supported legalization, and 81 of the patients interviewed felt euthanasia should be legalized. On the issue of the point at which euthanasia should be performed, research findings established that 60 of the respondents felt that euthanasia should only be done at such a point that it is certain the patient has no chance of surviving from the illness. 90 felt that it should only be done to patients who are unable to make decisions for themselves anymore. 70 were of the opinion that it should be performed upon the recommendation of a physician, while 55 insisted that euthanasia should only be done on the express request of a patient.
Discussion and Conclusion Euthanasia is among the ethical issues that continue to draw very sharp reactions whenever the debate comes up. This is because of the four main perspectives from which the issue is being approached. There are those whose views are religiously inclined while some base their views on legal aspects. Other would want to approach the topic from purely medical perspective while others tend to prefer to give ethics a priority. Subsequently, the research has established four main schools of thought on the topic of euthanasia. These schools of thought include enthusiastic advocacy, guarded acceptance, outright rejection, and vehement condemnation (Peck, 1997).
There are very strong proponents for both sides of this debate for and against euthanasia. Those in support believe that it is every individuals right to choose to die at their own convenient time and in such a manners that they so desire. The opponents on the other hand hold the opinion that euthanasia is not a persona matter of self-determination and personal belief. This they argue is because the action involves two people, and a complicit society to make it happen. In as much as the debate continue to rage over euthanasia, the decision will continue to rely more on patients whose life are at stake. It is no wander more terminally ill patients in Netherlands, where the practice is legal, tend to ask for euthanasia. What is important for now is to put aside the numerous biases and engage in constructive debate that would come up with a more acceptable position across the divide.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment