EUTHANASIA PHILOSOPHY 1
Euthanasia Philosophy
Student Name
University
Course
Professor’s Name
Date: Month/Day/Year
EUTHANASIA PHILOSOPHY 2
Reflection Concerning Euthanasia Philosophy
Euthanasia continues to spark a global discussion, particularly concerning terminally ill
patients, because whose choice to live or causes an ethical dilemma. A patient-centered approach
provides an excellent reflection for the reasons for using euthanasia when one considers factors
such as pain, depression, and dignity (Agarwal & Heiland, 2014). In most cases, terminally ill
patients cannot recover from their condition, and extending their suffering is detrimental to their
well-being, in Greece, where the term euthanasia originated from means good death. Most
counties forbid euthanasia because they believe it is a violation of a person's liberty to life (Ebott,
2010). Although most countries prohibit euthanasia, it is essential to note that it takes place in
forms, namely passive and direct. According to my personal views, the distinction between
passive and active euthanasia does not provide grounds for ethical values. The primary function
of a doctor is to prioritize the well-being of a patient even if it includes using euthanasia to
minimize their suffering and uphold their dignity.
Health practitioners strive to do their best to alleviate terminally ill patients suffering and
prolong their suffering; mainly, they can determine that the patients can maintain a satisfactory
life (Rodríguez-Prat, Balaguer, A., Booth & Monforte-Royo, 2017). Based on this assertion,
events that lead a patient to ask healthcare practitioners, physicians, or even doctors to hasten
their death often generates conflicts. Patient requests for euthanasia can cause anxiety and
confusion to physicians and signal social, physical, and psychological stressors (Crump, 2013).
A complete understanding of these requests' nature can play a critical role in guiding healthcare
practitioners on the best practice or decision for reducing death desires or alleviating suffering.
Although euthanasia is an ideal option in some situations, it should not apply to every situation,
EUTHANASIA PHILOSOPHY 3
particularly those that health practitioners have ascertained the availability of life sustainability.
Doctors and healthcare professionals should have the ability to determine the ideal applicability
of euthanasia and only use it as a last resort.
Reasons for Euthanasia
The rational reasons for euthanasia include physical, social, and emotional or psychological
factors (Moser, 2017). The loss of physical function, which hinders individuals from performing
their tasks or doing things linked illness, denies people their independence. The inability to
function is the leading cause of stripping people off their dignity, leading to euthanasia or
assisted-suicide (Rodríguez-Prat et al., 2017). Unbearable or severe pain is a leading cause of
assisted death. The inability to function and perform one’s duties provides sufficient justification
for one to end their lives.
Psychological factors associated with euthanasia fall under two categories, which are
hopelessness and fear. Fear arises from uncertainties concerning their dying process and future
suffering (Rodríguez-Prat et al., 2017). The primary cause of fear came from the uncertainties
surrounding body function loss and functional decline. Hopeless comes from the progressiveness
of their illness, which would lead to ultimate death. The social factors associated with euthanasia
revolve around patients' fear that they will become a burden to other people. The idea that one is
responsible for the suffering of other people affects patients more. Although several reasons
would make people opt for euthanasia, the decision for the final act relies on several underlying
causes, which include evaluating the nature of each case to establish a patient-centered approach.
EUTHANASIA PHILOSOPHY 4
The popularity of Hastened Death among Terminally Ill Patients
Patients with advanced stages of terminal diseases often express their desire for hastened
death (Breitbart, Pessin & Kolva, 2011). Many considerations surround these requests. Some of
the concerns surrounding this dilemma are issues such as faith or religion, pain, dignity, or even
depression. In the contemporary world, few problems continue to generate a considerable
amount of controversies, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia. Around the world, attitudes
and opinions surrounding the issue continue to differ. Despite the presence of continuing debate
around the issue, most arguments focus on the legal systems and societal beliefs concerning life.
Minimal consideration reflects on patient well-being (Moser, 2017). One of the most overlooked
issues in the debate is the reasons that lead patients to decide that they want a hastened death. In
the traditional context, the desire for hastened death came because of physical pain (Breitbart et
al., 2011). On the contrary, one can argue that the conventional belief for assisted suicide is
reductionist because one fails to understand the wishes from a patient perspective. Most medical
practice guidelines around the world advocate the use of a patient-centered approach in offering
healthcare services. A challenge exists to medical experts in a situation where they can prove that
they can sustain life or prolong the life of a patient. One of the primary ethical considerations
that continues to guide the medical filed is that doctors and physicians are patient interests and
well-being paramount in their decision-making. Euthanasia can have different values to specific
patients and conditions, which requires a complete understanding of each request before making
a decision.
EUTHANASIA PHILOSOPHY 5
Ethical Dilemma Surrounding Euthanasia
The modern world remains characterized by patient-centered medical and healthcare
service. Patients are increasingly involved in their treatment and continue to demand the right to
make decisions and treatment. In the traditional setup, physicians retained the sole responsibility
of making a medical decision on behalf of their patients (Moser, 2017). Fast-forward to the
contemporary world, and patients continue to make demands and independent judgments
concerning their treatment. The current trend has led to the review of laws concerning
euthanasia. An estimated 75% believe that assisted suicide (AC) and euthanasia require legal
approval to respect patient wishes when suffering from intolerable pain or illness. Incurable
illness and suffering continue to dominate the debate surrounding euthanasia (Landry, Foreman
& Kekewich, 2017). An ensuing discussion continues to persist when it comes to direct killing
and euthanasia. Most countries that practice AC and euthanasia do not allow doctors or
physicians to kill but have permission to enable patients to die. The implication of doctors
allowing patients to die contradicts with the murder because it involves practices such as the
omission of treatment. The debate about euthanasia and AC should not conform to the distinction
between killing and AC but remain on the same topic because doctors can assist patient to die by
using antibacterial therapy. The ethical dilemma in the situation of omissions, such as
withdrawal from a ventilator or medication, creates room for the natural progression to death.
Ethical Theories
Two opposing theories, namely deontology, and consequentialism (teleology) play a
critical role in the debate surrounding AC and euthanasia (Paterson, 2010). Consequentialism
uses a utilitarian approach, which stipulates wrongs or rights depends on the consequences of the
EUTHANASIA PHILOSOPHY 6
proposed action. In relationship to euthanasia and AC, teleology provides the most exceptional
ration between unhappiness and happiness. Non-consequentialism relies on moral directives,
such as Ten Commandments or other religious views (Paterson, 2010). The deontology
perspective suggests that the agent’s action should conform to the maxim that provides the best
action at a particular time based on universal law (Paterson, 2010). The principle that finds its
basis on universality means that the best action should conform to the universally accepted
regulations. The adherence to either of the principles is not appropriate in healthcare because
they have serious shortcomings.
Perhaps the most applicable ethical principle in healthcare and the issue of euthanasia is
beneficence (Landry et al., 2017). Beneficence requires action performed should benefit others.
On the contrary, the non-maleficence ethical principle requires activities that do not harm other
people (Landry et al., 2017). The two principles play a critical role in tackling the debate
concerning AC and euthanasia. Under a doctor's ethical conduct requires their actions to offer
maximum benefits to patients (Landry et al., 2017). The dilemma surrounding beneficence
regarding euthanasia and AC is whether the health practitioners' actions will offer maximum
benefits to patients. The patient-centered approach, which dominates the world, requires that
physicians' actions should prioritize patients and ensure that they have maximum benefit. The
question is whether assisting the patient to die has the most interest to them when the health
practitioners can prolong or preserve their lives in a comfortable manner. The question, which
ensues, is whether a patient can make a judgment or decision for hastened death when doctors
have ascertained that they can comfortably prolong their lives. Although euthanasia intentions
are necessary for alleviating suffering and pain while maintaining patient dignity, it is critical to
understand each case's nature. According to the Hippocratic Oath, medicine subscribes to non-
EUTHANASIA PHILOSOPHY 7
maleficence and beneficence because the primary purpose of healthcare services is to assist the
suffering and sick patients and ensure they do not receive any harm (Landry et al., 2017). The
two principles give doctors the right to override patient in certain situations. Doctors have the
right to override patients' decisions when they make irresponsible choices.
The principle autonomy continues to stir ethical debate when it comes to the issue of
euthanasia. According to the autonomy principle, fundamental human freedom is the equal right
for all people to make decisions (Landry et al., 2017). Every person has a moral responsibility
for respecting the decisions made by other individuals. Although the principles of autonomy are
applicable in euthanasia, it is essential to identify some defects such as an individual mental
capacity, reasoning, and information availability. Many countries around the world continue to
accept the right to stop or refuse treatment as legal rights that all patients can enjoy. The ethical
dilemma surrounding this case is the patient’s competence in making such a decision. Patients
with a terminal illness who have a sound mind and have a complete understanding of their
situation have the right to decide between AC and euthanasia. Psychiatric or mental
consideration remains considered as one of the primary factors of upholding patient wishes.
Depression or other mental illness can prove to be a cause of the desire to die. Treatment of
psychiatric conditions with medication such as antidepressants for two weeks has proven to
reduce the patients has proven to minimize patients desire to hasten their deaths. After the
ascertainment of the patients have the right mental status and their conditions remain irreversible
after all clinical interventions, patients have the right to decide on ending their lives. Patients'
next of kin have a right to decide on behalf of their loved ones in case they are not in a position.
EUTHANASIA PHILOSOPHY 8
Legal Issues of Euthanasia
Before tackling the legal issues involved, it is crucial to understand the difference
between AC and euthanasia. The primary difference between the two terms revolves around the
person who commits the final act. Euthanasia involves the last steps to end someone's life to
alleviate their suffering or pain, and someone rather than the patients receive the actions.
Assisted suicide, on the other hand, refers to helping someone to end his or her life upon their
request. In AC, the final action involves the individuals themselves. In some cases, assisted
suicide can refer to euthanasia. The prevailing dilemma exists in how different jurisdictions
interpret these conditions to inform their legal framework. Most jurisdiction that allows AC or
euthanasia requires the involvement of medical practitioners.
One of the paradoxes that continue to surround the world is people talking euthanasia
when people in some regions around the world, such as Iraq, continue to die without their
willingness to die. People continue to commit suicide despite the general knowledge that one of
the human instincts involves preserving life. The unclear ethical principles, confusion, and
paradoxes make it challenging in un-justifying or justifying euthanasia. Euthanasia is legal in
some parts of the world, such as Norway, Luxemburg, Belgium, Switzerland, and the
Netherlands. Other parts of the world consider the act as a criminal homicide. In the US, some
states such as Montana, Oregon, and Washington approve euthanasia. Although euthanasia
remains illegal in India, Gandhi's teachings support the act by endorsing the Ahimsa (Srivastava,
2014). Indians are religious, which results in them not relativistic in their thinking. Debate
continues to grow around the world whether the religious beliefs of medical practitioners can
EUTHANASIA PHILOSOPHY 9
affect their decision-making, attitude, and judgment when it comes to euthanasia, even in regions
where it legal.
Despite the euthanasia remaining legal in some parts of the world, the relevant question
concerning its legality has close ties with ethical consideration to ensure the accountability of the
practice. In most parts of the world, which allow the practice, the law enforces ethical principles
such as patients making informed decisions and adhering to beneficence, non-maleficence, and
autonomy principles. In most cases, the legal system acts as an arbitrator among parties who
oppose someone to choose to end their lives.
The law recognizes the refusal of medical treatment, including treatment, which can
prolong or sustain life (Landry et al., 2017). An excellent example comes from a patient who has
cancer refusing taking feeds using nasogastric tubes or denying doctors the right to treat them.
The right to refuse treatment equates to passive euthanasia. Patients have legal protection from
the law to refuse treatment, giving them every right to euthanasia.
Controversial Debate around Euthanasia
Although death is inevitable, it remains unpredictable. Euthanasia, which involves the
purposeful termination of one's life, has brought resulted in many controversial debates, as some
people view as a disruption of the natural course of death. The contentious discussion of the
matter revolves around virtue. Virtue ethicists find it challenging to break their principle belief,
which is "Do not kill." In most cases, virtue ethicists may find it difficult euthanasia requests
because of their robust beliefs that no one should take the life of another individual (Hursthouse,
2013). The ideal choice of action for this ethicist would involve finding a perfect way of
relieving someone's suffering or pain rather than take their lives. For this kind of ethicist, they
equate suffering to facing difficulties and may suggest religious intervention rather than an offer
EUTHANASIA PHILOSOPHY 10
means to an end someone's life. Virtue ethicists do not support euthanasia because they believe
that suffering remains a test of faith, courage, and hope.
Using the patient-centered approach, virtue ethicists must learn to respect the wishes of the
patients. Many people believe that respecting a person’s wants to hasten a person's death reflects
on one's personality and willingness to control their lives. Some of the robust arguments for
euthanasia are control over lives, dignity, and alleviating pain. Most religions around the world
believe that it is the sole responsibility of God to take a breath. A counter-argument is that
technologies and improvements in medicine are human-made, therefore an intrusion of God's
plans. This argument is baseless because, with the intervention of medicine, potential disease
outbreaks such as smallpox would have wiped the entire world without the intervention of
medicine and improved technologies. Similarly, one maintains the right to determine their deaths
when their medical conditions are irreversible, and they live with severe pain.
Attitudes towards Euthanasia
Technological advances, which characterize the field of modern medicine and demographic
changes, have resulted in complicated perceptions among patients, health professionals, and
families. The attitude towards death has resulted in a considerable discrepancy as many people
can control the time, pace, and time of death. Clinicians assume that families with a better
support system from relatives, friends, and family can handle the stress levels and will not desire
to die (Roest, Trappenburg & Leget, 2019). Studies indicate that the quality of the support
system is what matters most and not the quantity. The contradicting actor to this analogy is that
have excellent support systems may result in patients feeling that they continue to burden people
and may result in them deciding to end their lives.
EUTHANASIA PHILOSOPHY 11
Medical professionals believe that people with debilitating, degenerative, incurable, or disabling
have the right to die because it reduces both their burden and those of their loved ones. Many
families, caregivers, and patient file petitions to permit euthanasia to end the suffering and
control the burden that the affected people continue to face. Financial consideration plays a
critical role in deciding whether to use euthanasia. Terminal illness treatment is costly, and many
patients end-up maxing their insurance cover, making it unbearable to their friends and well-
wishers to cover their medical expenses. In such situations, well-wishers, family, and friends find
it easy to opt for euthanasia. The attitude towards euthanasia or AC in such circumstances is
positive because it offers a solution of alleviating the patient suffering while relieving families
the stress of the financial burden involved in treatment.
Euthanasia Opposition
Although many polls indicate that the public wants legislative changes to give the
terminally ill the chance to use euthanasia, a considerable opposition continues to dominate the
field (Roest, Trappenburg & Leget, 2019). The fear of abuse of inevitable descent is robust, as
the society has created a solid opinion on how people should die. Particularly in churches,
institutional opposition continues to persist because they believe AC and euthanasia are
equivalent to suicide. The fear or presence of slippery slope continues to dominate discussion
concerning euthanasia. Many concerns exist concerning the protection of vulnerable people to
continue to dominate the euthanasia debate. The slippery slopes primary concern is to ensure the
protection of vulnerable people. Although there exist many concerns about the administration of
euthanasia, the primary concern and decision revolve around the patient or their families when
incapacitated.
Conclusion
EUTHANASIA PHILOSOPHY 12
The primary function of a doctor is to prioritize the well-being of a patient even if it
includes using euthanasia to minimize their suffering and uphold their dignity. The topic of
assisted suicide and euthanasia is controversial and attacks many opinions and perceptions. The
emergence of a patient-centered approach should give patients the autonomy of making their
medical decision, once proven they are of sound mind. Future research is necessary to ascertain
the medical and psychological tests required before medical professionals can administer
euthanasia. Healthcare professionals should explore all reasons, function, and attributes, which
informs a person decision to request euthanasia.
EUTHANASIA PHILOSOPHY 13
References
Agarwal, A., & Heiland, M. (2014). Desire for Hastened Death Amongst Veterans Facing
Terminal Illness (SA520). Journal Of Pain And Symptom Management, 47(2), 458.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.12.215
Breitbart, W., Pessin, H., & Kolva, E. (2011). Suicide and desire for hastened death in people
with cancer. Depression and cancer. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 125-150.
Crump, L. (2013). Ethical dilemmas: who can decide when euthanasia is justified?. The
Veterinary Nurse, 4(1), 4-11. https://doi.org/10.12968/vetn.2013.4.1.4
Ebbott, K. (2010). A Good Death Defined by Law: Comparing the Legality of Aid-in-Dying
around the World. Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., 37, 170.
Hursthouse, R. (2013). Normative virtue ethics. Ethica, 645.
Landry, J. T., Foreman, T., & Kekewich, M. (2015). Ethical considerations in the regulation of
euthanasia and physician-assisted death in Canada. Health policy, 119(11), 1490-1498.
Moser, E. (2017). The Right to Life, Voluntary Euthanasia, and Termination of Life on
Request. Philosophy Study, 7(8). https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5313/2017.08.007
Paterson, C. (2010). The Contribution of Natural Law Theory to Moral and Legal Debate
Concerning Suicide, Assisted Suicide, and Euthanasia. Universal-Publishers.
Rodríguez-Prat, A., Balaguer, A., Booth, A., & Monforte-Royo, C. (2017). Understanding
patients’ experiences of the wish to hasten death: an updated and expanded systematic
review and meta-ethnography. BMJ Open, 7(9), e016659.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016659
EUTHANASIA PHILOSOPHY 14
Roest, B., Trappenburg, M., & Leget, C. (2019). The involvement of the family in the Dutch
practice of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a systematic mixed studies review.
BMC Medical Ethics, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0361-2
Srivastava, V. (2014). Euthanasia: a regional perspective. Annals Of Neurosciences, 21(3).
https://doi.org/10.5214/ans.0972.7531.210302
