Understanding Euthanasia: The Pros and Cons - Essay Sample

Introduction

As a topic, physician-assisted Euthanasia exists In a way that most individuals are not informed about. Euthanasia involves a medical practitioner, prescribing medicine that a patient can take to end their lives, legally (Lee et al. 310). Every person needs to have a clear understanding of Euthanasia. In the contemporary world, the term Euthanasia refers to death that is free of pain and anxiety often brought through the use of medication. History suggests that Euthanasia previously referred to as 'good death' (Bachman et al. 303). Questions have always existed regarding the morality and legality of the new science of Euthanasia. Recently, Euthanasia is known as 'mercy killing,' that is done on purpose to spare an individual from suffering, a concept that has been the basis for the moral and legal questions that keep revolving. Regardless of whether ending a person's life relieves pain and suffering and if it is the procedure which should be taken, Euthanasia, or mercy killing, is not ethical and should be illegal. If murder is unlawful, then the unethical ending of an individual's life should also be illegal. This essay argues that physician-assisted Euthanasia is unethical and should be illegal.

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

Save 25%

Medical ethics provides the duties of physicians to the society and the patients, other times, to the extent that supersedes the laws. Physicians are called to the duties of providing excellent patient care based on the ethical principles of beneficence, to respect the autonomy and the promotion of justice and fairness, and to avoid and make harm minimal through the principle of non-maleficence. The law and the medical ethics support refusal of treatment by a patient that includes life-sustaining treatment. The patient has the right to withdraw from and avoid treatment that they judge to lack consistency following their goals and preferences (Seale 205). Death should be natural as a result of a patient's refusal and as a result of the disease which they suffer from. The most consistent ethical traditions for professionals should be an emphasis on the provision of comfort and care, and physicians should not take active parts in ending a person's life since the physician-assisted Euthanasia needs breaching of some prohibited duties and the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Attempts to terminate a person's life are seen as inconsistent with the roles of the physicians as comforters and healers. Also, making physically assisted Euthanasia legal will result in pressure among patients who are terminally ill, who fear that their illness could be a burden to their families financially, emotionally, and physically. Being that the practice is incompatible with the roles of the physician as a healer, it could be hard to control, posing high societal risks.

Ethical arguments that argue that physician-assisted Euthanasia should be legal highlight the broad interpretation of a physician's duty to relieve pain through the principle of respect for patient's autonomy (Emanuel et al. 1805). Various proponents regard Physician-assisted Euthanasia as an act of compassion which respects the choice of a patient and gives fulfillment to the obligation of not abandoning a patient. Those who argue for the legalization of physician-assisted Euthanasia suggest that most patients who are terminally ill, wish to commit suicide by medical means. Medical death has not been an easy task to accomplish, but when drug dosage and timings keep failing, a patient develops a more enormous trauma than the thought of death itself. These situations lead physicians to assist patients who are determined to end their lives, to prevent the more significant traumatic harm. Proponents believe that by ending a patient's life at their request, physicians aid in preventing further mental anguish and pain since the patient will not recover; and that by doing this, physicians do not violate the goals of medical ethics.Proponents agree that the patient respect for autonomy should be respected but still do not recognize that these must be balanced with the other ethical principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Observing the principle of autonomy only when performing Euthanasia jeopardizes the role of the physician in practicing high-value care that is in the interest of the patients, is a true association between a patient and their physician. It is only through balancing all the ethical principles that a physician can be able to fulfill their duties, including their daily encounters of administration of tests to a patient which have not been indicated medically and declining to write an illegal prescription or breaching confidentiality to protect the health of the public. Physicians are not called upon to merely provide services, but they are members of a profession that is well equipped with ethical responsibilities (Hurst, Samia, and Alex 271). The practice of physician-assisted Euthanasia raises clinical, ethical and other concerns, and each physician that is involved in high-quality care through the end of a person's life should ensure that they maintain a commitment to human dignity, and should focus on managing pain and other symptoms. Living with serious illnesses require thorough research on challenges and answers by both patients and physicians.

The ultimate goal of society should not be to make death more medical. Physician-assisted Euthanasia is not a solution, nor therapy to the questions that have been raised about ending a terminally ill patient's life. Based on strong ethics and various policies and clinical practices, there has not been enough support give to the legalization of physician-assisted Euthanasia. The practice itself is illegal based on the fact that it alters the role of the profession in the society, and given the existing nature of the association between a patient and their physician since it affects the trust relationship. The outlined principles issue the responsibilities of medicine and the duties of the physician in providing care based on ethics, evidence, and clinical judgment. The ultimate goal of medicine should not be the timing of a person's death. Physicians can ensure that they help their patients in controlling the last chapters of how they live their lives through the provision of high-quality care, compassionate support, effective communication, and through the utilization of the best resources.

Works Cited

Bachman, Jerald G., et al. "Attitudes of Michigan physicians and the public toward legalizing physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia." New England Journal of Medicine 334.5 (1996): 303-309. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8532027

Emanuel, Ezekiel J., et al. "Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: attitudes and experiences of oncology patients, oncologists, and the public." The Lancet 347.9018 (1996): 1805-1810. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1125125/

Hurst, Samia A., and Alex Mauron. "Assisted suicide and euthanasia in Switzerland: allowing a role for non-physicians." Bmj 326.7383 (2003): 271-273. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10924088_Assisted_suicide_and_euthanasia_in_Switzerland_Allowing_a_role_for_non-physicians

Lee, Melinda A., et al. "Legalizing assisted suicide-views of physicians in Oregon." New England Journal of Medicine 334.5 (1996): 310-315. Retrieved from http://newsactivist.com/en/articles/ethics-fall-2014-champlain-college-st-lambert-flacks/legalization-assisted-suicide

Seale, Clive. "Legalisation of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide: a survey of doctors' attitudes." Palliative Medicine 23.3 (2009): 205-212. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Legalisation-of-euthanasia-or-physician-assisted-of-Seale/ca916ca560e8fb2caa90e75cea02c249f2229dc8