An Investigation into a Contemporary Health Issue: Ethical and Moral Implications of Euthanasia - Essay Example

Euthanasia: Ethical, Moral and Legal Implications 1. Ethical, legal and moral implications of euthanasia The debate on the ethical, moral and legal implications of euthanasia has been going on with no viable conclusion. The debate has taken a legal turn with many countries either advocating for or against it. However, the major deciding factor remains the medical practitioners whose moral and ethical obligations determine the fate of a patient. It is prudent to say that euthanasia is both morally and ethically right and wrong. The principal aim of this report is to examine the ethical, legal and moral implications of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide (PAS). The ‘Right to Die’ group argues that euthanasia is ethically wrong and is driven by some socio-ethical issues that are propagated by the society. Euthanasia is usually done on the critically ill, physically disabled and other people who are considered a burden to the society. The group cites that the debate on ethical implications of the process has a psychological effect on those who are targeted. This may affect and influence the affected to think in terms of euthanasia as the only way to become independent of their problems. While this may seem like voluntary euthanasia, although it has been aided by depression of the victim, the likelihood of people committing involuntary euthanasia in the future is very real. The argument countered fro by the proponents of Right to Life, questions the ethicality behind killing disabled people in the interests of the society. Governments have a duty to protect the fundamental human right to life, which will be seriously hindered by euthanasia. The argument that people with disabilities are a burden to the society and should therefore have their lives terminated evokes a feeling of society riddled in unethical and immoral behaviors (Cauldwell, 2007). On the other hand, terminating someone’s life on the basis of incapacitation violates people’s right to life. The unethical nature of euthanasia has been experienced in many cases where people are killed through decisions taken by medical professionals and interested parties. If such a trend continues, the professional ethics and moral obligations will be eroded completely. The Futile-Care Theory and Health Rationing have been used to make euthanasia look ethical and moral. In some countries, healthcare professionals are prohibited from helping patients with certain levels of problems. While in other countries like Holland, euthanasia is legal. Even without the patients’ knowledge, the healthcare professionals result to euthanasia. This deprives people of their life. Many pro-euthanasia people argue that euthanasia is an economical way of ensuring that health costs remain bearable. Further, the rise of healthcare insurance policies that are profit-driven has reduced human life to mere issue of economics and profit-making. This deprives euthanasia any ethical backing and makes it morally wrong. In cases where people with serious medical conditions have been killed, euthanasia has been used as the scapegoat (Golden, 2013). Euthanasia debate has shifted from its ethical implications to its economic gains, which shows that it lacks any ethical rights at all. It appears many healthcare professions functions against the code of conduct, which requires them to ensure human life is preserved under all circumstances. In New Zealand, where costs associated with treatment of life-time diseases like diabetes is rising, legalizing euthanasia can have negative moral and ethical implications (Friezelle, 2003). Organ donation and harvesting has also been used by many medics to argue for euthanasia. In many countries, organs of patients are removed in certain medical circumstances like coma, dead brain or in persistent vegetative state (PSV). The failure to disclose the organ removal process makes it more questionable. Mostly, many people have their tissues removed before they are dead. Medics argue that with other people waiting for the organs, it is benefiting to have organs removed (Burant & Youngner, 2004). However, many religions especially catholic cite such organ removal as evil and unethical. Many professions have degraded the value of human life and are at the forefront of advocating for organ harvesting from people described as dead. Many medical doctors have suggested even the compulsory harvesting of organs from people with permanent illnesses (Campbell, 2004). The issue of organ harvesting has raised serious ethical concerns with many citing that, euthanasia has been taken a step further to cover up killings of people with irreversible conditions. Some medical processes required in tissue harvesting have been responsible for increasing the pain and causing brain death. Thus, euthanasia legalization will critically devalue human life to the extent that people are killed during the process of organ retrieval. Further, potential donors may be denied the right to receiving treatment to hasten their deaths. Since the 16th and 17th century, religion has used the principle of double effect to ensure that ethics and morality are observed in everyday activities. This principle is still in effect today when it comes to the euthanasia debate. However, most of the responsibilities lies with the healthcare professionals whose decisions must reflect their ethical and moral stands on the issue. Despite this distinction, euthanasia is a morally bad action as it causes death to another person. While sedation is considered right, it has been used as a death enhancer through withdrawal of treatment from patients. Whatever the case, this is unethical and does not make death by such means a moral right (Somerville, 2003). It is pointless to argue that euthanasia is ethical based on the fact that the healthcare sector is riddled with economic interests and that euthanasia is becoming a norm though secretly. People have argued that legalizing euthanasia would only create a highway for murders. If they are doing it secretly irrespective of its illegality why would they obey laws after it is legalized? (Somerville, 2003; Golden, 2003). Despite the unethical implications, euthanasia sometimes becomes the only way out of irreversible medical situations. While all attempts to help patients hit a dead end, there is nothing else but to end a patient’s life. However, this should be done with great consultations if it ever to remain ethical and morally right. For healthcare professionals and family members, this represents one of the hardest decisions to make (Welie & Have, 2014). On the other hand, people sometimes choose not to participate in medical interventions that save their lives. This represents another ethical dilemma to the practitioners and caretakers. Although it is a personal decision, euthanasia may provide the most humane way of ending an individual’s suffering. Some of the proponents of euthanasia suggest that sometimes, the medical interventions that are applicable to a certain medical condition provide more suffering. Ethically, stopping the intervention is right, which implies withdrawing the medical help. This acts as euthanasia, which serves the purpose of alleviating the suffering and sometimes the costs associated with the medical treatment. 2.1. Euthanasia today In the midst of the heated euthanasia debate and its ethical and moral implications, it is important to note that current state of health for many people demands a permanent solution. However, some medical doctors have gone way too far to an extent of arguing for euthanasia to save costs, which they consider unnecessary. Euthanasia has also eroded the morals and ethics involved in the medical professionals code of conduct. This has been strongly opposed. Despite the strong opposition and laws that criminalize euthanasia, doctors have done it secretly. Hospitals have also put forward regulations that prohibit administering some treatments to PSV states. However, there are certain cases where euthanasia remains the only option. Welie & Have (2014) have argued that the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is sometimes the ideal way to go in some medical cases. Neglecting patients has been seen by many as against the ethics of the medical profession. However, Welie and Have (2014) evoke serious debate about the ethicality of assisting patients with irreversible medical conditions and acting passively. In whichever case, the doctor is morally responsible for the act. The doctor has the right to hold medical interventions that are harmful to patients. This discretion remains important and at loggerheads with many people and law interpretation. The ethical implication to euthanasia lies somewhere between the right to give treatment and inform the patient or the right to withhold treatment and inform the patient or not. In whatever instance, an ethical decision has to do with the best interests of the wellbeing of the patient. A patient whose life depends on the life-sustaining machine thus, has a right to live, and the doctor has a moral responsibility to cater for him. According to ethics, the best interest of the wellbeing of the patient is in the life-supporting machine. Irrespective of the costs, time and psychological effects, doctors cannot deny a patient life sustaining medical intervention as it would be morally wrong and unethical. Despite this, the current society has commercialized human life and set off on an immoral and unethical path in the medical field. 2.1.1 Health and social care: The NMC and HPC codes and euthanasia The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) and the Health Professions Council (HPC) have rules and regulations that pertain to health and social care provision. The code of conduct and performance and ethics guidelines specify that the professionals must treat each person with dignity and respect. Further, information on their health concerns should be provided to them. The professionals must also act to protect the health wellbeing of the people under their care. They should also work to identify and minimize the risks to patients and their caretakers or clients. Medical practitioners should also be trustworthy. Safeguarding people’s rights, choices and dignity forms the core element of the NMC and HPC code. While the code acts as a guideline, the issue of ethical dilemma in making choices presents itself to medical professionals. Further, the extent to which the code is reinforced especially in current times where employers have their sight on profits rather than taking care of their patients is a difficult decision to make. Healthcare providers are becoming more profit-oriented eroding the ethical and moral guidelines even to the extent of administering euthanasia to patients who can hold on to life. Hospitals are developing policies that prohibit certain interventions to people with certain medical problems. Despite the codes, the medical profession is exerting more pressure to practitioners, which may lead them to neglect the code or fail to employ it. On the other hand, the evolving nature of contemporary medical issues like euthanasia is having a toll on the individual interpretations of the code. For example, in Holland where euthanasia is legal, the NMC and HPC codes might not hold any water over euthanasia (Goldsmith, 2011; Gaag, 2008). 3.1. Resource allocation The cost debate of euthanasia has taken extreme turns, where people believed to be burdens to the society are easily killed to reduce the cost of hospital bills. Several cases that seek to terminate the lives of dependent patients have been recorded, which qualify to be outright murders. It is clear that the debate on euthanasia has taken economic issues into consideration. In U.S. alone, there have been reported cases of insurance firms seeking out doctors to terminate patients’ lives in order to reduce the healthcare costs associated with the patients. The argument is that there are a lot of useless people in the society especially the old who suffer from Alzheimer’s, stroke related complications or cancer. Due to development in the medical field, people argue that the number of the old people is increasing tremendously. Killer diseases like pneumonia, stroke and Alzheimer’s are controlled, despite their long-term effects on the patients. These people are past their life expectancy and their contributions to the government’s health insurance policy are expired. The government spends millions of dollars in their care, yet they have no returns. These funds could be used for other medical purposes. The argument is that euthanasia would be a good way of reducing wastage of money and developing other areas. Research into euthanasia among old people observed that many old people fear being a burden and would therefore choose to die. In states like Oregon, U.S., where euthanasia is legal, assisted deaths among the elderly is likely to be high. Oregon also cut the benefits of people with life-threatening conditions and the poor. This implies that people with severe health conditions are likely to consider euthanasia. The future of euthanasia is likely to consider the economic benefits of assisted death. New Zealand is one of the countries with high costs of healthcare and euthanasia is likely to influence the decisions in the future. The rising costs of healthcare, funding allocations, shortages of beds and nurses and increasing push to have euthanasia considered is likely to be the future drive for reducing healthcare costs. Governments have started to induce shortages in palliative care and pain management in favor of other areas of healthcare development. This trend in reducing costs may force euthanasia to be used as the means to reduce the costs. According to Oregonians, the cost of assisted suicide is $35, while the cost of proper health costs between $35,000-$40,000. The current healthcare policies being advocated for by many countries, for example, the Obamacare are targeting to cut costs related to health benefits especially for the old people. Under these policies, senior citizens will have to grapple with the fact that their families cannot afford the high cost healthcare, in the absence of government funding. This may result to the elderly, disabled, and the terminally ill to consider euthanasia. Under these circumstances, the political leadership may be forced to look at legalizing euthanasia as a cost cutting measure (The Life Resources Charitable Trust, 2011). References Burant, S. & Youngner, S. (2004). Death and organ procurement: public beliefs and attitudes. Social Science and Medicine, 59: 2325-2334. Campbell, C. (2004). Harvesting the living? Separating brain death and organ transplantation. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 14(3): 301-318. Cauldwell, K. (2007). The Right to Die? Ethical and legal issues surrounding euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Retrieved, March 24, 2014, from, http://voices.yahoo.com/the-right-die-ethical-legal-issues-surrounding-177627.html Friezelle, F. (2003). Are we spending enough on healthcare in New Zealand? Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association, 116(1169): 1-4. Gaag, A. (2008). Standards of conduct, performance and ethics. Health Professions Council. Retrieved from, http://www.hpcuk.org/assets/documents/10002367FINALcopyofSCPEJuly2008.pdf Golden, M. (2013). Another view: assisted suicide fraught with consequences. The Bee, July, 14. Retrieved from, http://www.sacbee.com/2013/07/14/5563639/assisted-suicide-fraught-with.html Goldsmith, J. (September 20th, 2011). The NMC code: conduct, performance and ethics. The Nursing Times, 107(37). Somerville, M. (2003). Death talk: debating euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in Australia. The Medical Journal of Australia, 178(4): 171-174. Welie, J. & Have, H. (2014). The ethics of foregoing life-sustaining treatment: theoretical considerations and clinical decision making. Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, 9(14). The Life Resources Charitable Trust. (2011). Economic aspects of euthanasia. Retrieved March 25, 2014, from, http://www.life.org.nz/euthanasia/euthanasiapoliticalkeyissues/economics/ Read More