Essay Sample on Euthanasia: A Complicated Discussion in Med, Phil and Public Forum

Introduction

Euthanasia is a complicated discussion to be held and is one that is both incredibly substantial and inflammatory in the public, philosophical, and, media forum because of procedural and technological developments in the medical filed which facilitate individuals to live longer and longer in progressively diverse and misfortune situations. There has been a gradual change in the approach of physicians alongside this development, thus, they will do and attempt anything to keep their patient alive. However, the states to which people are surviving due to trials and advancement in technology are not living a good life. To ensure people live a good life; physicians were given the freedom to conduct euthanasia under specific conditions.

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

Save 25%

Euthanasia is the ending of life by a physician with a purpose is to end intolerable suffering caused by pain which has no prospect of improvement. These conditions are patient is suffering from unbearable physical pain and death is investable and drawing near (Goligher et al., 149). Example of a situation that is considered as life is no longer good for a patient; is a persistent vegetative state. A persistent vegetative state is a condition in which a patient has received severe cerebral damage, and a patient has been in a permanent state of unconsciousness for a minimum of a month. A patient in this state may demonstrate limited wakefulness, the groaning of the impulsive eye or bodily movements and a patient may unable to eat of their own, in such context euthanasia may be conducted

The Distinction Between the Two Types of Duties Generated by Justice: Duties of Non-interference and Duties of Service

Life objects to euthanasia as a matter of principle. Often, people feel it is a wrong response to the predicament of individuals who are suffering terribly as the majority of those who persistently demand euthanasia. Good palliative care is the solution to unbearable pain (Bhatnagar, & Gupta, 196-208). When palliative care is administrated, demand for euthanasia diminishes. To those are still determined to kill. They have to consider that supposed right of a person cannot always be permitted to dictate if the common good is placed at risk. Assisted Dying does not imply a personal decision only as some of the investors such as families, care teams, and, others must be involved in making decision

While in medicine, euthanasia justice is in two types. Distributive justice which judges the fairness of the allocation of resource in palliative care, while procedural justice covers fairness in the process of decision-making situation for allocation of resources in conditions of shortage in terms of resources must be divided among patient with consideration of possibility to survive. While procedural stipulate making in formed decision to come up with best and forego the rest

Passive Non-voluntary Euthanasia as Morally Permissible

From the Doctrine of Double effect perspective, non- voluntary passive euthanasia is morally right. The doctrine of Doubt effect which refers to the moral significance of the distinction between intending harm and causing harm as a predicted but unintended side effect at one's action (Bronner, & Goldstein, 800). In case of passive euthanasia, doctor intends to follow the patient by terminating treatment such as removal of life supporting machines because of patient's right to terminate treatment event through physician predict the unintended outcome of the death of a patient. The doctor act of terminating treatment respects the right of patient and patient unfortunately dies. Therefore according to the Doctrine of Double effect, since the intention of a doctor was not to kill but to follow patient will, passive euthanasia qualify to be morally permissible. In passive euthanasia, the doctor is denied moral obligation to prevent the patient's will to terminate treatment. As much as physicians have a professional obligation to curb the patient from death, but the doctor also has the professional responsibility to respect the patient's will in optional; treatment. If a patient desire to terminate treatment that will cause in their death, a physician needs to assist, but not to assist by continuing with treatment which results in taking away the life of a patient that would be violating patient desire not to be killed.

Active Voluntary Euthanasia Is Sometimes Morally Permissible. Reason Why It Cannot Be Legalized

Active euthanasia involves taking a particular and intentional step to cause a patient's death. It usually entails injecting the patient with a lethal dose of medications. A patient is injected with a sedative so that they are sent into sleep if they are in the state of consciousness and then injection of muscle that reduces the heat beat to death. Suggesting in most cases it is conducted with no patient consent, as much respecting patient consent is one of the guiding principles of patient centered concept. Physicians usually take the matter at their hand and make a decision that reflects their wish, not patient will that is why in the United States considered it illegal. On moral perspective, active euthanasia is correct, since it is an act of remorsefulness, and the best way to express patient care in such a tricky situation. Nevertheless, biomedical ethics recommends that patient care is constituted around four primary principles: non-maleficence, justice, respect for autonomy, and, beneficence (Beauchamp, 2014). In other words, it suggests a solution to unbearable pain is good and adequate palliative care. Patient autonomy is one fundamental principle that should always be considered, for it should never be assumed that a patient desires a specific treatment. Non-maleficence refers to the law of abstaining from triggering harm to others. In other words it adheres to the general rule 'do not kill'. Beneficence suggests contributing positively to the patient's welfare, and finally, the principle of justice calls for the promotion of fairness and equity.

Work Cited

Bhatnagar, Sushma, and Mayank Gupta. "Integrated pain and palliative medicine model." Annals of palliative medicine 5.3 (2016): 196-208. Retrieved from: http://apm.amegroups.com/article/view/10504

Bronner, Ben, and Simon Goldstein. "A Stronger Doctrine of Double Effect." Australasian Journal of Philosophy 96.4 (2018): 793-805. Retrieved from; https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2017.1400572

Goligher, E. C., Ely, E. W., Sulmasy, D. P., Bakker, J., Raphael, J., Volandes, A. E., ... & White, D. B. (2017). Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Intensive Care Unit: A Dialogue on Core Ethical Issues. Critical care medicine, 45(2), 149. Retrieved from: 0.1097/CCM.0000000000001818

Stone, Erin G. "Evidence-Based Medicine and Bioethics: Implications for Health Care Organizations, Clinicians, and Patients." The Permanente Journal 22 (2018). Retieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6207438/