Death is an inevitable biological eventuality to the human race regardless of the programmed mindset encompassing the negative perspective surrounding it. Euthanasia is the deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable suffering, as attributed to the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics. Euthanasia has been a dynamic argumentative topic featuring spectrums of bioethicists on its approaches with a complex dilemma incorporating specific elements: agent, subject, intention, and causal proximity with which the action of an agent corresponds to the outcome. Patient’s rights have evolved with correspondence to medical advancement, focusing on the ultimate psychological, spiritual, and physical entitlements upheld by the health standards for ethical medical procedures performed by medics. However, Euthanasia has raised controversies in philosophy, thus attributing to numerous theories that ought to elaborate on the need for the action execution in society.
The philosophy of ethical egoism elaborates on the notion that individuals are an obligation to self-interest pursuit exclusively. Ethical egoism with regards to Euthanasia focuses on the benefits alienated to the patients with their content motivated by self-interest. For ethical egoism, Euthanasia must correspond with an individual’s ultimate interest exclusively but with a relative consideration for the well-being of others. (Rachels, 2022, p, 74) ethical egoism is subjected to arguments such as self-defeating altruism, which elaborates Euthanasia as a moral action that must undergo reasonable considerations for its execution on the deserving individual to Forster everyone’s best interest in the context.
An ethical egoist will support Euthanasia about the desired need of the patients. The ethical medical procedure performed by medics is set to uphold health standards for the patients, even the critically ill individuals with chronic disease who views Euthanasia as a mode to alienate the suffering with dignity for humanity. An egoist will support voluntary Euthanasia for vulnerable patients through the empirical, comparative, and theoretical analysis to approve the induction of the action (Rachels, 2022, p, 66-90). Patients volunteering for Euthanasia achieve the requirements that promote the interest of everyone by pursuing their interest exclusively, which is correlated to a public benefit; thus, a typical egoist will advocate for wholesomely beneficial actions.
Ethical egoism on Euthanasia elaborates a conflict of loyalty to the community as it endorses wickedness. Euthanasia is portrayed as an action that discredits the doctrine for a community inclined toward the principle. The advocacy of the action is deemed unethical. (Rachels, 2022, p, 66-90) euthanasia practice with self-interest jeopardizes the view of the family of their intentions regarding the patient’s life; thus, their point of view is not considered by the patient. The course of action in this scenario is for the community to support the patient’s desires regarding their wish for death, leaving their prejudice aside.
Social contract ethicist advocates for the collaboration of morality and government in practicing ethical actions in society. Social contract ethicist fosters character imposed by the government; thus, the execution of Euthanasia must follow the stipulated governance norms. Social contract philosophers encourage euthanasia legalization to enforce the rationality of the evaluation of the action for the vulnerable patients in a community since the establishment of the rule will eventually benefit the people (Rachels, 2022, pp, 92-99). Social contracts ethicists will encourage euthanasia induction to the patient as a mode to elaborate self-sacrifice as the mutual benefits of the society ignore the personal interest of the patients when establishing the rules. The proposer of social contracts theory will justify the joint use of the stipulated levant norms other than the interest of the patients.
Euthanasia draws a collision between personal and national obligations advocated by the social contract theory. Vulnerable victims of Euthanasia will feel the need to preserve their life, a commitment to self-interest, and at the same time, compelled to follow the government’s norms. The setting of the rules regarding Euthanasia sabotages the undivided interest of the patients since the mutual benefit is of prime focus; hence personal desires are jeopardized (Rachels, 2022, pp, 92-100). For me, Euthanasia should be the decision made by the vulnerable patient, not the stipulated norms that are not entirely focused on the broad spectrum of the patient’s desires; thus, I would not advocate for the social contract philosophy.
American Medical Association (AMA) code for doctors is relevant to the practice of Euthanasia by medical practitioners. AMA stipulates ethical rules that a physician must follow when inducing Euthanasia through reorganizing the paramount importance of respect for patient autonomy in decision-making regarding end-of-life care. (White, 2018, p, 102-105). The code regulates the moral functionality of medical practitioners in the performance of their duties about
Euthanasia imposes a professional and familial confit due to the appropriate discharge time for the intensive care unit, patients’ death, and the withdrawal mechanism from the life-supporting medication. The various moral dilemma and communication orientations conflict between professionals and relatives stemming from different ethnos cultural settings, causing disputes (Van Keer et al., 2015, pp, 1-13). AMA stands for the fact that Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the practitioner’s role as a healer (White, 2018, p, 102-105). The code articulated the norms that doctors should incorporate into their professional duties.
Euthanasia has propelled researchers to elaborate philosophies that explain the causality of the action in society. Euthanasia induction for vulnerable patients is essential in the medical sector to enhance proper end-of-life care from health practitioners. The codes of ethics stipulate the norms that health professionals are accorded to follow in implementing their duties.
Rachel, j. (2022). element of moral philosophy (9th ed.).
Van Keer, R., Deschepper, R., Francke, A., Huyghens, L., & Bilsen, J. (2015). An ethnographic study of conflicts between healthcare professionals and families of a multi-ethnic patient population during critical care. Urgent Care, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-015-1158-4
White, F. (2018). The American Medical Association and Physician-Assisted Suicide. The Linacre Quarterly, 85(2), 102-105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0024363918764479