Article Analysis Essay on Ratnakumars' Arguments

Introduction

Ratnakumar's article present arguments that state conditions that necessary to be adhered for legalizing the utilization of euthanasia in palliative care. She claims that euthanasia does not violate fundamental principles of care- not harm patient, Ratnakumar has no problem with letting euthanasia been used along palliative care. Firstly, Ratnakumar seconds professor Ann that both palliative care and euthanasia serve the same purpose - to lessen pain and suffering and secondly, the article argues that euthanasia is be used as express compassionate to a patient in his/ her last phases of a terminal illness. He also expresses his distress by using an example of his relative who died because of inadequate palliative care, hence showing how euthanasia can violate the right to a good life of a patient until a patient dies.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

My Assertions About the Ideas and Issues

I agree with the article's view that euthanasia can be incorporated in palliative care because firstly palliative care is not a guarantee to peaceful death and secondly medications used in the treatment of pain have the potential to alter consciousness, change the state of mind, and even cause death. However, not all patient under such terrible pain wishes to die. I disagree with the article's claim that both palliative care and euthanasia have the same intent because the two-act use a different approach to attain the same result, from this line of thought, euthanasia is ethically unacceptable practice and is not the same as ending life in palliative care.

I agree with Ratnakumar when euthanasia can be used to assist a patient in the last stages of a terminal illness, firstly because, euthanasia is supposed to be the last resort when all the medical treatment is ineffective. The view of ending medical treatment when a patient is in a terminal situation is critical logic behind the practice of euthanasia (Clifford, 2017). A terminally ill patient can have severe pain and such patient experience frequently difficulties in sleeping. However, medical that are usually used to treat pain can interfere with consciousness, change the state of mind, and at worse can result in death. In several cases without the aid of health care, most patients in such condition commit suicide in a horrific, messy, and, traumatic manner (Romano et al. 2017). Therefore, it is better to subject a patient in such a situation to a decent death rather than letting them kill themselves. However, Ratnakumar arguments imply that not all patients in such state desire to die; it advocates physicians to seek consent from the patient (Cohen-Almagor, 2015). However, those patients that recovered from near death state and have developed related mental illness wish that physicians could aid them to death at that instant that exposing to more sufferings.

Secondly, an argument against euthanasia is that one of the primary objectives of palliative care is lessening and controlling pain. Palliative care addresses the needs of individuals with life-limiting illness holistically. The claim further argues that if it adequately provided it offers to provide maximum individualized care that can enhance the quality of life and increase chances for survival. Hui and Bruera (2016) suggest that several of the health workers assert that there are inadequate resources to offers patient with unbearable pain adequate care. Besides, health workers feel that palliative care has failed when a patient exhibit a desire to end his/ her life. An argument for euthanasia point that as such, as a patient with unbearable pain is submitted to adequate palliative care, the care cannot always hinder the suffering of a patient as a magnitude increase. Besides, palliative care cannot assure every patient a peaceful and painless death. Hence, it is right to conclude that there can be a place for euthanasia in palliative care.

Nevertheless, as much as agree with her in my first two arguments, I disagree with her when she suggests that both palliative care and euthanasia have the same intent, in other words, this indicates that the words can be interchanged since they first premises gives equal results. But ethically ending life in palliative care is not the same emphasize the significance of individual choice and self-sufficiency while, euthanasia exposes vulnerable people to pressure to end life due to mere reasons such as patients being abandoned by family and loved ones and moral pressure to free up resources (Keown, 2018). The logic behind it and approach to attain ending of life in euthanasia and in palliative care differ. In most of the instance physicians, assume euthanasia as the best solution for both facilitate without seeking consent from the client. Hence, making decisions that deprive patient care such as denying a patient with basic care as Ratnakumar illustrate of how his relative died.

Strength and Weakness of the Article

The article composes of view from both sides of the matter; hence, it has set the neutral ground for its audience without biasness. As much as the article has exhausted to point entirely the article provider adequate reasons to support the co-existence of euthanasia in palliative care, it also uses the author real life experience to illustrate how inadequate palliative care is can be conducted to pursue euthanasia. However, it lacks evidence to give the arguments authenticity. The author could have referenced her text to give credit to the work. Moreover, the author of the text has not claimed from which angle is derived from her point of view, since the topic for and against euthanasia is categorized into religious, legal, and, ethical argument. Finally it does not propose recommendation on how ensure inadequate palliative care is done in the name of compassionate ending of life.

Conclusion

This article by Ratnakumar claims that in the presence of palliative care can co-exist with euthanasia as long as do not harm patient principle is used to guide care providers in the course of deciding whether to conduct or not conduct euthanasia under palliative care. However, it is not clear from which angle the arguments are presented form. Euthanasia should be undertaken in palliative care has the last option to help patient relieve pain but not on other grounds such as moral pressure to free resources. Always health workers should always be guided with ethical principles of care such as veracity, fidelity, beneficence, non-maleficence, and, autonomy and confidentiality in the course of them administering care.

References

Clifford, J. M. (2017). Where is the argument for the conceptual slippery slope?. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 211(6), 397-397.Cohen-Almagor, R. (2015). An argument for physician-assisted suicide and against euthanasia. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 1(4), 431-441.

Hui, D., & Bruera, E. (2016). Integrating palliative care into the trajectory of cancer care. Nature reviews Clinical oncology, 13(3), 159.

Keown, J. (2018). Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalisation. Cambridge University Press.Romano, A. M., Gade, K. E., Nielsen, G., Havard, R., Harrison, J. H., Barclay, J., ... & Dillon, P. M. (2017). Early palliative care reduces endoflife intensive care unit (ICU) use but not ICU Course in patients with advanced cancer. The oncologist, 22(3), 318-323.