Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a patient’s life to relieve them of pain and suffering. The euthanasia debate is heavily contested between pro-euthanasia supporters and anti-euthanasia activists. First, pro-euthanasia supporters argue that healthcare providers should respect patients’ autonomy over their life. A patient can request euthanasia because they want to die with dignity. Their personal ethics guarantee the right to end their life and elevate their pain. In this case, personal ethics are driven by ethical egoism, which dictates that people make choices that benefit their interests. Therefore, a patient is morally correct to ask for euthanasia despite the objection of their family members.
On the other hand, anti-euthanasia activists are supported by communal ethical factors. In most communities, the right to life is viewed as sacred. Thus, human life is respected, and the use of euthanasia is considered unethical. For instance, religious communities will ask terminally ill patients to use pain-relieving medication instead of euthanasia. Besides, communal ethics rely on social contract ethics which are guided by the principles agreed to by a particular society (Rachels& Rachels, 2019). If society terms killing as unethical, then using euthanasia is unethical because it violates the sanctity of life.
Evaluation of the Euthanasia Debate Using Kantian Ethics
The categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant dictates that people should act in ways that they would wish others to act (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). It is based on the principle of universality, which views morality as absolute and should be followed by all logical beings. Also, Kantian ethics argues that rational beings make moral decisions that honor their humanity. Due to this, Kant’s ethics are against the use of euthanasia. If society helps one person to die, then it should be agreeable to assist everyone who wishes to end their life. Thus, allowing euthanasia is immoral because it undermines the rationality of humanity just to avoid pain and suffering. Besides, euthanasia is morally wrong because patients will view themselves as the means to an end. In Kantian ethics, this is unethical because humans have a duty to preserve their lives.
Annotated Bibliography on the Euthanasia Debate
Barsan, M. M., & Dragu, G. (2022). Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Pros and Cons regarding the Right to End Your Life with Dignity. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov. Series VII: Social Sciences• Law, 63-68.
In this article, Barsan & Dragu (2022) discuss the legal and moral issues involving euthanasia and assisted suicide. On the one hand, the authors argue that “each person’s right to live is protected by the law and one must not cause the death of another person with intent” (pg.1). On the contrary, the authors also give certain conditions that permit the use of euthanasia. These include; the patient’s consent, suffering from a terminal illness, or depression. Also, euthanasia can either be voluntary or non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is “requested and consented by the patient,” while non-voluntary euthanasia is conducted on “patients who do not have judgment” (pg.2). Finally, the authors conclude there should be limits on the use of euthanasia and assisted suicide. I agree with that because patients have to feel safe in the hands of doctors. If euthanasia is allowed without consent, then it breaks the principle of trust between patients and doctors.
Kono, M., Arai, N., & Takimoto, Y. (2023). Identifying practical clinical problems in active euthanasia: A systematic literature review of the findings in countries where euthanasia is legal. Palliative & Supportive Care, 1-9.
This article discusses the clinical and moral problems present in countries where euthanasia is legal. The authors categorize euthanasia as either active, passive, or indirect. “Passive euthanasia” refers to withdrawing life-sustaining machine treatment leaving the patient to die. On the other hand, “indirect euthanasia” is performing an act that alleviates suffering even though it may shorten life secondarily (pg. 2). Then, the article argues that patients should be allowed to consult with independent doctors about the use of euthanasia. I believe that this is important because it ensures that patients get the correct information before choosing euthanasia. Also, the authors state that physicians have a right to “conscientious objection.” (pg.5). I agree with this because a healthcare provider should not be forced to offer treatment against their personal beliefs. There should also be sufficient evidence to prove that the patient severally chose euthanasia as the end-of-life option.
Nicolini, M. E., Kim, S. Y., Churchill, M. E., & Gastmans, C. (2020). Should euthanasia and assisted suicide for psychiatric disorders be permitted? A systematic review of reasons. Psychological medicine, 50(8), 1241-1256.
In this journal of psychological medicine, Nicolini et al. (2020) review the ethical position of euthanasia in patients with psychiatric disorders. “EAS” refers to Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide, which is usually requested by terminally ill patients suffering from psychiatric disorders. The authors argue that “mental suffering can be worse than physical suffering” (pg. 5). They also equate mental illness to a terminally ill condition that should not be discriminated. Therefore, mentally ill patients have the right to choose EAS because this condition affects their quality of life. I agree with this argument because mental illness causes immense suffering, which undermines a person’s dignity and value in life. For this reason, mentally ill patients have a right to decide how they want to die. This article informs my topic because it highlights the importance of respecting patients’ autonomy over their end-of-life care. o ly patients can decide whether their pain is unbearable, be it physical or mental.
Pesut, B., Greig, M., Thorne, S., Storch, J., Burgess, M., Tishelman, C., & Janke, R. (2020). Nursing and euthanasia: A narrative review of the nursing ethics literature. rsing Ethics, 27(1), 152-167.
This nursing journal discusses the role of nursing ethics in the use of euthanasia. Nurses play a critical role in providing care to patients, especially those who are terminally ill. In such circumstances, patients may request euthanasia from nurses if they feel the pain is unbearable. It creates a moral dilemma for nurses because their professional duty dictates that they should “do no harm” (pg.8). it creates a moral dilemma because nurses are guided by the values of alleviating suffering and guarding the sanctity of life (pg.6). nurses participate in euthanasia, then thy erode public trust, and they are “perceived as killers rather than healers” (pg.6).
In this case, nurses should inform hospital administration that they are uncomfortable being involved in “assisted suicide.” The authors state that nurses can “choose to be relieved of all care for reasons related to preserving moral integrity” (pg.2). On the contrary, compassion is one of the fundamental beliefs of nursing that can be used to support the use of euthanasia (pg.6). If the care being given to a patient does not show any improvement, then they should be allowed to choose euthanasia. Besides, nurses have a unique relationship with patients as they witness their suffering (pg.7). Thus, nurses are able to understand the circumstances in which a patient chooses euthanasia. As a result, nurses have to respect patients’ rights which include the right to self-determination, which ensures patients die with dignity (pg.8). agree with this discussion because nurses are trained to advocate for the best interests of a patient. Nonetheless, euthanasia should not be violated by healthcare providers who may take advantage of the weak and dying.
van der Geest, S., & Satalkar, P. (2021). Thinking About ‘Completed Life’Euthanasia in the Netherlands from the Generative Perspective: A Reflexive Exploration. thropology and Aging, 42(1), 129.
This journal article explores the concepts of completed life and self-determination as the main reasons for choosing euthanasia. Completed life” is the belief that a person has lost value and meaning in their life. ey no longer see opportunities of having a meaningful life and therefore death becomes the better option. elf-determination” refers to a person’s freedom to make decisions concerning the final stages of their life (pg. 3). e authors also explain that most people who are terminally ill choose euthanasia since they do not want to be a burden to others and society. This statement is true because, in many countries, the working class is burdened by the growing responsibility of taking care of the elderly. Therefore, euthanasia allows critically ill patients to end their lives so that those hospital resources can be used to care for others.
However, the authors argue that “completed life euthanasia is far less acceptable to religious people than non-believers” (pg.7). is statement is important because it highlights the role religion plays in making ethical decisions about end-of-life options. Many Christian doctrines do not approve of euthanasia because it violates the sanctity of life. So, religious authorities believe that respect for life should be upheld at all times. Only God has the right to take away life, and this means patients should endure their pain until death takes its course naturally.
References
Barsan, M. M., & Dragu, G. (2022). Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Pros and Cons regarding the Right to End Your Life with Dignity. lletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov. Series VII: Social Sciences• Law, 63-68.
Kono, M., Arai, N., & Takimoto, Y. (2023). Identifying practical clinical problems in active euthanasia: A systematic literature review of the findings in countries where euthanasia is legal. lliative & Supportive Care, 1-9.
Nicolini, M. E., Kim, S. Y., Churchill, M. E., & Gastmans, C. (2020). ould euthanasia and assisted suicide for psychiatric disorders be permitted? systematic review of reasons. ychological medicine, 50(8), 1241-1256.
Pesut, B., Greig, M., Thorne, S., Storch, J., Burgess, M., Tishelman, C., & Janke, R. (2020). Nursing and euthanasia: A narrative review of the nursing ethics literature. rsing Ethics, 27(1), 152-167.
Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. w York: McGraw-Hill Education.
van der Geest, S., & Satalkar, P. (2021). Thinking About ‘Completed Life’Euthanasia in the Netherlands from the Generative Perspective: A Reflexive Exploration. thropology and Aging, 42(1), 129.
write