Euthanasia: Moral And Ethical Questions - Essay Example

Euthanasia: Moral And Ethical Questions Introduction A major ethical issue in the field of healthcare is euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of putting an end to the life of an individual in order to relieve him/her from the suffering or pain. The Netherlands’ State Commission on Euthanasia defines the practice as “the deliberate action to terminate life, by someone other than, and on the request of, the patient concerned” (Somerville, 2001, p. 27). Measures are taken with the intension of ending the life. Euthanasia can be voluntary or involuntary. In voluntary euthanasia, the individual’s consent to end his/her life is taken whereas in involuntary euthanasia, the consent of the victim is not taken. Euthanasia is an ethical issue because it raises many moral and ethical questions. It is because of the fact that euthanasia is an ethical issue that some countries and states legalize it while others do not. Even in the countries and states euthanasia is legalized, there may or may not be separate laws for voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. In the healthcare industry, doctors, nurses, and caregivers are often faced with the challenge of giving or not giving euthanasia. This is one of the most critical decisions in the healthcare industry as the loss caused can never be recovered or compensated if the decision is uninformed. Stakeholders There is a lot of debate around the subject of euthanasia. Some of the entities whose rights, needs, desires, and views are being represented in the current debate on euthanasia include the individual being given euthanasia who is mostly a patient, the victim’s relatives, doctors and healthcare providers, law-making and law-enforcing agencies, religious groups, and human rights’ activists. The victim and/or the relatives vary in their needs and views on euthanasia from one case to another. Likewise, different countries and states have varying laws on euthanasia depending upon the consent of the majority of people or the other criteria that are considered for law-making. Most religious groups condemn the practice of euthanasia in general and involuntary euthanasia in particular as a vast majority of religions consider murder or suicide a sin. Some religious groups and human rights’ activists even consider euthanasia as murder. Theoretical analysis of euthanasia Utilitarianism is an approach to ethics which is directed at maximization of happiness for the mankind. The founder of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham argued, “nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think” (Bentham cited in Chambers, 2005). It cannot be said with utmost certainty that utilitarianism rejects euthanasia because the practice does not yield greater happiness. The prime stakeholder of the practice is the patient. Sometimes, the incurable pain of the disease is so excruciating that the patient as well as the relatives approve of euthanasia as the final means of ending the suffering. It is an argument between individual’s rights and opinions of the society at large. However, it can be argued that utilitarianism disapproves of euthanasia because Bentham argued that the creation of rights put an end to the notion of liberty (Chambers, 2005). Virtue ethics is another theory of ethics that places more emphasis on the character of the individual performing euthanasia than on the action. Following its revival, many ethicists have raised moral issues regarding euthanasia drawing on such concepts as benevolence, mercy, compassion, and death with dignity (Zyl L, 2002). These ethicists have questioned euthanasia’s compatibility with the flourishing of humanity. Virtue ethics may or may not approve of euthanasia depending upon the details of the case under consideration. In certain cases, virtuosity means deterring from a practice that puts an end to the life. This may be a case where the pain is bearable and there are better alternatives to euthanasia. In other cases, virtuosity would mean being compassionate and merciful and thus euthanize a patient so as to offer him/her relief from suffering or pain. Virtue ethics does not give one decision on the rightness or wrongness of euthanasia. Intuitionism is the approach to ethics that imparts the need to take the decision in a certain case on the basis of intuition. Intuition is an inherent sense in human beings that tells that what is right or wrong, good or bad. From the perspective of intuitionism, euthanasia cannot be generalized as right or wrong. In case the pain is bearable, common sense suggests that euthanasia is wrong because the life is being ended unnecessarily. On the other hand, when the pain is unbearable or when euthanasia is being given to a murderer as a punishment, common sense approves of the practice. Results of the research carried out by Tilburt et al. (2013) suggested that people that were more inclined to religion and were conservative objected to euthanasia. This may be because of the fact that intuition is guided by beliefs, and thus the decision on euthanasia from the viewpoint of intuitionism varies from case to case depending upon the beliefs of the analyzer. My stance My stance on euthanasia is that the practice should be avoided as much as possible. Involuntary euthanasia should be avoided at all costs because it does not even include consent of the victim. However, voluntary euthanasia may sometimes be the last option to end the pain. Euthanasia is also justified when it is given to criminals as punishment for an offence that is grave enough to justify it in the eyes of the law. In the medical cases, euthanasia should only be used when no other means or option is left. Also, euthanasia should be given in a way that is the least painful for an individual particularly in the medical cases. In legal cases, the way in which euthanasia can be given has to be decided as per the law. Arguments in support of my stance The fundamental point I would make in representing my viewpoint to someone who holds an opposite view is that euthanasia is putting an end to life, so it is morally wrong unless otherwise justified. Religion is the fundamental source of ethics. Religion guides us on every matter and inculcates a sense in us to differentiate between what is right and what is wrong. A vast majority of religions, including Abrahamic religions condemn killing or murder. The religious stance on euthanasia is that “human life possesses an intrinsic dignity and value because it is created by God in his own image for the distinctive destiny of sharing in God's own life” (BBC, 2009) so euthanasia is wrong. However, religions also speak for justice and thus justify killing a person who has either killed someone or conducted an offence of a similar sort. Conclusion Euthanasia is a very complicated ethical issue in the field of healthcare. Most theories of ethics including utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and intuitionism that have been discussed in this paper cannot give a generalized statement approving of or condemning euthanasia. Every case in which euthanasia is given differs from other cases. Accordingly, the stakeholders, virtues, and moral obligations vary from one case to another. While involuntary euthanasia in medical cases should be avoided in almost every case, voluntary euthanasia may be permissible in the cases of untreatable excruciating pain or in legal cases as punishment. References: BBC. (2009). Euthanasia and assisted dying. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/euthanasia_1.shtml. Chambers, J. C. (2005). A utilitarian argument against euthanasia. BMJ. 331(689). Retrieved from http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/31/utilitarian-argument-against-euthanasia. Somerville, M. A. (2001). Death Talk: The Case Against Euthanasia and Physician-assisted Suicide. McGill-Queen's Press. Tilburt, J. C. et al. (2013). "Righteous minds" in health care: measurement and explanatory value of social intuitionism in accounting for the moral judgments in a sample of U.S. physicians. PLoS one. 8(9), e73379. Zyl L, v. (2002). Euthanasia, virtue ethics and the law. New Zealand Bioethics Journal. 3(1), 18- 27. Read More