Euthanasia and Terminally Mentally Ill Patients - Essay Sample

Introduction

Euthanasia is one of the most widely debated ethical issues in healthcare that have existed since time immemorial. The issue, coupled with the current mental health of the population is highly contentious and the people who are against it have provided several reasons as to why they would want the practice to be abolished. One of the main reasons proposed by the antagonist of the issue is that terminally ill patients, particularly the ones with mental issues cannot determine their real condition and it is only God who has the power to take away their lives. Conversely, a proponent of the issue argue that euthanasia should be allowed, especially for terminally ill patients with mental illness since there is no need for letting them suffer forever and their families can make that decision on their behalves. The main objective of this paper is to discuss euthanasia and its impact on the current mental health population.

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

Save 25%

Background of Topic

Euthanasia is the process of terminating the life of a terminally ill person in order to relieve them of their suffering. There are two classifications of euthanasia namely, voluntary euthanasia (euthanasia conducted with consent) and involuntary euthanasia (euthanasia conducted without the consent of the patient). The procedure of carrying out euthanasia can also be classified into passive and active euthanasia. Most people who undergo the procedure normally suffer from incurable diseases or severe body conditions. Among these people are individuals who suffer from mental disorders. They always request for euthanasia based on unbearable mental suffering caused by serious psychiatric diseases. Euthanasia has been at the center of very heated debates as early as 460 BC when it was first mentioned in the Hippocratic Oath which states "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death" (Kamm, 2015, p. 54). The issue is surrounded by religious, ethical and practical considerations. However, its application has heavily been supported and contested in the same measure.

According to Hippocrates (460-377 BC), a virtuous doctor does not take part in killing and be fully devoted to their art of healing (Roman, 2011). Such sentiments were also echoed in the bill (the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997) that President Clinton signed which prohibited the use of federal funds to facilitate the death of a patient. With the increasing cost of healthcare and an aging population, legalization of euthanasia would propagate voluntary euthanasia into involuntary euthanasia. However, according to bioethicists, terminally mentally ill persons cause strain on limited resources, and they do not qualify as human beings, thus they should be eliminated for the greater good. Conversely, opponents of euthanasia believe that euthanasia facilitates the power and control of doctors but not patients. This is a false claim since in virtually every country; there are no sufficient facilities that would grant doctors such powers. Hence, it is prudent for different nations to channel their resources of highly-skilled staff, medications, and equipment towards effective treatments (Byock, 2014).

The most critical argument about euthanasia is whether it is ethical. Proponents of the practice believe that dying is not the same as having been born and the process is imperative in relieving unnecessary pain for patients that are undergoing massive pain that is fused with deep psychiatric diseases (Awadi, 2016). They believe that the practice has no impact on the ability of someone being born or hindering the disabled from becoming parents. The process does not ask for patients to be killed against their wishes; even the ones with mental issues. It is also intended for use by patients who are terminally ill or in a condition that will worsen. However, the proponents of the practice face the challenge of arguing their point in relation to the number of cases in which patients ask for euthanasia against their best interests (Olie & Courtet, 2019). This is one of the primary challenges facing patients with mental illnesses since they are not able to decide on what they want on by themselves. Hence, cases of terminating their lives without their consent are rampant. Protections should be put in place for such patients, whether through disability or some other reasons. There are other instances when the lives of such patients who be terminated without their consent or through medical social errors. First, the diagnosis could be wrong and the patient might not be terminally, or the prognosis would be wrong and the patient may not be bound to die soon. The patients can also misjudge their conditions, or be unrealistic about the pain they are experiencing.

Antagonists of euthanasia hold an ulterior view of the practice with their primary argument being that euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life. They believe that embracing the practice means belittling the lives of the mentally terminally ill patients who cannot make a decision on their own. They also argue that voluntary euthanasia is the beginning of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the murder of the mentally sick whose lives are thought to be worthless ("Euthanasia for people with a mental illness?" 2016). Besides the ethical argument, the antagonists of euthanasia also practically argue that effective palliative care renders euthanasia useless, there are no proper mechanisms of regulating euthanasia, the practice leads to improper care of the mentally terminally ill patients and the practice exposes extremely vulnerable people to pressure of terminating their lives (Karaarslan, 2014).

The People Affected by Euthanasia

The practice of euthanasia has numerous effects in society. It affects many people, mainly mentally terminally ill patients who cannot make decisions on their own. The practice is a major issue in society bearing in mind that the number of people suffering from mental disorders is rapidly increasing on a daily basis. It is estimated that over 450 million people suffer from mental illness (Levin, Bradley, & Duffy, 2018). Most of these people are not able to access psychiatric services, thus they end up developing complex mental illnesses that end up costing them their lives. In most cases, patients who come from countries that have legalized euthanasia tend to request the service through their families when their situation worsen. This problem has constantly on the rise in the shadows as global health priorities have mainly concentrated on infectious diseases, HIV AIDS, cancer and heart diseases. The number of mentally terminally ill patients who request for euthanasia is increasingly on the rise and the viability of the practice are currently being discussed in different countries. However, the practice of euthanasia still remains a controversial issue, mainly when it concerns individuals suffering from mental illnesses such as dementia or major depressive disorder (Varelius, 2015).

Proposed Solutions and Further Avenues of Research or Inquiry

There are numerous challenges that are associated with handling euthanasia requests which have been expressed by different patients suffering from mental illness. Hence, a thorough examination of the practice should be done on the practice to determine its viability. Several sectors of the society should be included in this discussion in consideration of inclusivity. The outcomes of such examinations should add and inform the international debates on patients who seek euthanasia, main individuals with mental illness.

Euthanasia requires further extensive research on its viability. There are numerous avenues through which this can be achieved. One of the most effective criteria that can be employed in carrying out an in-depth study of the practice is the formulation of mandatory laws that propel the physicians to report the euthanasia case for review to the Federal Control and valuation Committee for Euthanasia. From the committee, researchers can collect information on the practice and carry out further studies on them.

Conclusion

Euthanasia is one of the main ethical issues affecting patients with mental problems. It is a major problem for both physicians and patients themselves since the process could be riddled with inaccurate prognosis, the patients failing to determine accurately their condition as a result of fear of pain and the patient not being in a position to make decisions on their own due to the mental conditions. As a resulted, the practice has generated numerous debates with the proponents of the practice citing their reasons and opponents of the issue citing ethical and religious for not supporting the practice.

References

Awadi, M. A. (2016). Opponents and Proponents Views Regarding Palliative Sedation at End of Life. Journal of Palliative Care & Medicine, 06(01). doi:10.4172/2165-7386.1000242

Byock, I. (2014). The Case Against Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199974412.013.3

Euthanasia for people with a mental illness? (2016). BJPsych. International, 13(02), 50-51. doi:10.1192/s2056474000001197

Kamm, F. M. (2015). Physician-Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia, and Intending Death. Physician-Assisted Suicide, 28-62. doi:10.4324/9781315811369-4

Karaarslan, B. (2014). Assessment of nurses' views about euthanasia according to their departments. Dicle Medical Journal, 41(4), 700-706. doi:10.5798/diclemedj.0921.2014.04.0503

Levin, K., Bradley, G. L., & Duffy, A. (2018). Attitudes Toward Euthanasia for Patients Who Suffer From Physical or Mental Illness. OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying, 003022281875466. doi:10.1177/0030222818754667

Olie, E., & Courtet, P. (2019). The advocates of euthanasia in patients with mental illness are going in the wrong direction. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 214(03), 171. doi:10.1192/bjp.2018.236

Physician-assisted suicide: the last bridge to active voluntary euthanasia. (n.d.). Euthanasia Examined, 225-260. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511663444.017

Roman, B. (2011). Euthanasia: Between Personal Moral and Civic Ethics. Euthanasia - The "Good Death" Controversy in Humans and Animals. doi:10.5772/19657

Varelius, J. (2015). Mental Illness, Lack of Autonomy, and Physician-Assisted Death. New Directions in the Ethics of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, 59-77. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22050-5_5