can you do it please?

Running Head: EUTHANASIA

EUTHANASIA 6

Euthanasia

Name

Institution

Euthanasia

One of the most controversial issues in the medical profession for decades in the practice of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide (PAS). Euthanasia is the practice of the deliberate killing of a patient, with or without their consent. PAS on the other hand is a patient-initiated and controlled form of dying upon the request of a patient. Although somehow different, these two practices are intertwined as they both involve the ending of a patient’s life. Euthanasia can be active, passive, voluntary, and involuntary. Even though euthanasia is illegal in most countries, some countries such as Netherlands and Belgium have made the practice legal in their medical institutions. Arguably, euthanasia is a moral, ethical, and a medical professional issue that should be critically scrutinized. Those in support of the euthanasia translate the practice to a good death that is merciful to patients. Unfortunately, many governments are still abated on the notion of making euthanasia legal because of the ethical and morality surrounding this practice. All patients, notwithstanding the nature of their illness deserve adequate care until their death. The sanctity of human life should be honored by medical professionals and the society at large. Because of this all interventions that aim to make the quality of life of dying patient meaningful should be put to use. That said, it is worthy to postulate that, the euthanasia and PAS are unethical acts that should not be condoned in society. Instead, adequate care should be provided to patients to make them confortable until their deaths.

The Harms of Euthanasia

Euthanasia and PAS are practices that do more harm than good to the welfare of patients. First, euthanasia undermines the medical profession. Notably, the primary role of the medical profession is to honor and preserve life. However, euthanasia undermines this role such that medical professionals play the role of executioners instead of preserving life. Psychological anxiety is another harm associated with euthanasia. In this regard, euthanasia disrupts the trust between a physician and patients leading to the development of psychological anxiety. In other cases, patients are coerced to accept euthanasia or PAS from family because of various reasons such as financial or caregiving burdens (Emanuel, 1999, 636). Conversely, some healthcare institutions abuse the use of euthanasia whereby other palliative care interventions are not properly exhausted on a patient before resorting to euthanasia. The possibility of the abuse of this practice can only lead to more unwarranted deaths of patients who could have been saved using other medical interventions. In relation to the abuse of euthanasia is the use of this practice on incompetent patients. The notion that mentally unstable patient should be introduced to euthanasia without their consent is unethical and unjustifiable (Hampton, 1993, 430).

If euthanasia was that humane as the proponents claim, then the culture of deception should not have encompassed this practice. According to Magnusson (2004, 487), there have been deceit in healthcare institutions in regards to the planning of the death, disposal of the body, and in the process of procuring drugs for euthanasia. Doctors have in so many cases, fabricated the underlying reasons surrounding the death of their patients in the bid to conceal their actions. Lying on death certificates is another case of the culture of deceit surrounding the practice of euthanasia.

Benefits of Euthanasia

Proponents of euthanasia argue that there are many benefits associated with this practice to warrant the legalization of euthanasia. First is the benefit of realizing autonomy whereby individual autonomy should be upheld as an American value. Another neither noteworthy element to consider is the view that euthanasia is nor harmful if it is voluntary. Second is the role of euthanasia in reliving the pain and suffering of patients. In this claim, euthanasia relieves the pain of terminally ill patients who have lost hope for recovery (Emanuel, 1999, 630). Thirdly, the incapacitated nature of one’s body is another reason in support of euthanasia. Patients who have lost control of their bodily functions are considered to be in pain and a persistent state of suffering. For this reason, euthanasia is considered to be more humane for such patients (Ho & Chantagul, 2015, 255).

However, it is my belief that the reasons provided above are not justifiable to warrant the practice of euthanasia and PAS. Notably, the argument on the significance of realizing individual autonomy can be refuted because euthanasia involves another person’s participation. In some cases, such as patients suffering from dementia are not in a mentally stable condition to make concrete decisions concerning their lives (de Beaufort & van de Vathorst, 2016, 1464). Medical practitioners therefore have the duty to safeguard the lives of such patients until their deaths. On the other hand, the notion that euthanasia plays the role of relieving pain and suffering of patients cannot be supported. Arguably, there are other medical interventions that serve the purpose of relieving pain. Additionally there are no clinical methods to measure the standard of pain and suffering that justify euthanasia (Emanuel, 1999, 632).

People with Dementia and the Decision of Euthanasia

There are rising cases of patients with dementia requesting for euthanasia especially in the Netherlands. Dementia is a disease that consists of a number of diseases with severe symptoms. Because of this, dementia is associated with a short life-expectancy thus the fear of natural decline on the part of patients. There have been several cases of people with dementia undergoing euthanasia in the Netherlands. In view of the above, it should be considered ethically wrong to end the lives of dementia patients upon their request. Just like any other patients, patients that suffer from dementia have a right to proper care in the course of their disease. In this fashion, healthcare institutions and the society at large have a duty to provide meaningful care to dementia patients. According to de Beaufort & van de Vathorst (2016, 1466), doctors have a professional duty to ensure that all patients regardless of whether they are dying or not are adequately cared for. In any cases of the administration of euthanasia irrespective of the underlying reasons, a doctor should be held accountable for hastening the loss of life.

Responsibilities of Respiratory Therapy Professionals in Regards to Euthanasia

Respiratory therapy professionals have significant role play in regards to the issue of euthanasia. According to the code of ethics of the nursing profession, respiratory therapy professionals should show respect to others. The dignity and value of patients should be upheld as well as respect patients right to medical care. Commitment to patients is another role of respiratory therapy professions that entails providing care that maximally advocates for the safety and rights of patients. Honesty and self-integrity is another ethical role of nurses towards being honest with patients. In the same fashion is the role of nurses to maintain professional competence by providing the best possible care to patients. In view of the above, the claim by most nurses on administering euthanasia out of pity of patients is uncalled for and unprofessional (Hampton, 1993, 429).

Overall, there has been an ongoing debate on the practice of euthanasia. While some countries such as Netherlands and Belgium have made the practice legal, other nations are still abated on their stance against this practice. Proponents of euthanasia argue that this practice is beneficial and humane because it alleviates the pain and suffering of terminally ill patients. Secondly, is the notion that euthanasia can be instrumental especially when no other medical interventions can guarantee recovery. In such as case, euthanasia eases the financial and caretaking burden from families. Notwithstanding the reasons provided by those in support of this practice, euthanasia is ethically, morally, and professionally wrong. Euthanasia undermines the medical profession and the sanctity of life. Death is part of the cycle of life and should occur naturally as purposed. Legalizing euthanasia only gives rise to the problem of distinguishing the thin line between continuing diagnosis and terminating life. Notably, underground euthanasia is an explicit example of the loss of lives of many patients because of culture of deceit that surrounds euthanasia in many health institutions. In particular, patients suffering from dementia deserve quality care and interventions that minimize their pain. Lastly, respiratory therapy professionals have the role to maintain professional competence, respect the dignity and rights of patients to receive medical care, and to advocate for the safety of patients.

Reference

de Beaufort, I. D., & van de Vathorst, S. (2016). Dementia and assisted suicide and euthanasia. Journal of neurology, 263(7), 1463-1467.

Emanuel, E. J. (1999). What Is the Great Benefit of Legalizing Euthanasia or Physican-Assisted Suicide?. Ethics, 109(3), 629-642.

Hampton, S. (1993). Should euthanasia be legalized?. British Journal of Nursing, 2(8), 429-431.

Ho, R., & Chantagul, N. (2015). Support for voluntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia: what roles do conditions of suffering and the identity of the terminally ill play?. OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying, 70(3), 251-277.

Magnusson, R. S. (2004). “Underground Euthanasia” and the Harm Minimization Debate. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 32(3), 486-495.