euthanasia

Euthanasia

Students Name

Institution

Instructors Name

Course

Date

Euthanasia

The individual and societal ethical issues that can play a role in defining either side's

moral viewpoint in a dispute vary depending on the topic. However, they all appear to converge

around a set of principles that explain how and why the event is taking place. Because these

concepts are generated from an individual's value system, they vary. Factors that influence an

individual's views on euthanasia, for example, usually revolve around their opinions on the value

of human life. The critical ethical principles include autonomy, justice, benevolence, and

empathy towards the suffering individuals. Beneficence involves an act of charity carried out to

do good to others, including a moral obligation not to harm. Moreover, autonomy is the capacity

of an individual to make informed decisions independently without coercion, such as the

decisions by a patient to undergo euthanasia if they feel that it is the best way to reduce their

suffering or if they are suffering from an incurable disease.

Conversely, the opposing ethical views include the religious beliefs against imposing

harm unto others, morally wrong to kill, and the fear of going to hell. According to various

religions, it is ethically wrong to take a life since only God gives life, and only he is supposed to

take away life. Christians indicate that anyone who commits murder and, in the case of

euthanasia, anyone who takes a life will go to hell, a place where they indicate will be of eternal

anguish.

The Kantian categorical imperative emphasizes treating individuals with dignity and

respect as a way of valuing them. We find that the Kantian model supports euthanasia in

principle when examining the whole concept (Cholbi, 2015). Because of the aim underlying

euthanasia, Kantian ethics would legitimize it. If euthanasia was carried out to promote "good

will," which Kant regards as the supreme basis of morality, the conduct must be morally

acceptable. Euthanasia cannot be justified if it is carried out with malice in the name of hatred,

for example. Because Kantian ethics is predicated on treating others as fully human as you are, it

would be appropriate to end prolonged suffering to help that individual.

Banović, B., Turanjanin, V., & Miloradović, A. (2017). An ethical review of euthanasia and

physician-assisted suicide. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 46(2), 173

The paper by Banovic et al. seeks to understand euthanasia from an ethical viewpoint

devoting their attention to varying critics that have been directed on various regulations of

antibody-dependent enhancement and passive euthanasia. To build more on the previously

existing literature, the current research surveys Serbian physicians. The varying approaches

taken by different countries on the legalization of this issue are constantly under review as

people are growing more into knowledge about ethics and what is morally right in society.

Banovic et al. have identified that "the right to death with dignity is interrelated to ethics and

morals” (p. 6). Due to the severe qualities of some legal systems, the law and morals do not often

stand in the essential pervasive link, albeit such occurrences should be as unusual as necessary.

Another critical point raised by Banovic et al. in the literature is “could ethical and moral

conduct be illegal, and the practice to be in line with the law to be immoral” (p.7) However, I

believe that the act to conform to the law should be considered immoral if the existence or non-

existence of ethical variances between killing and allowing a patient to die from euthanasia. I

agree with the authors that the will of a patient's autonomy should be considered regarding

euthanasia. The paper has helped me understand the physician's stand regarding euthanasia and

will assist in further research regarding the ethics of euthanasia with regard to health workers.

McKinnon, B., & Orellana-Barrios, M. (2019). Ethics in physician-assisted dying and

euthanasia. The Southwest Respiratory and Critical Care Chronicles, 7(30), 36-42.

McKinnon (2019) identifies the various definitions of euthanasia, reviewing both active

and passive euthanasia and the moral implications for physician-assisted suicide. The study

adopts the definition of euthanasia as “physician-assisted dying rather than physician-assisted

suicide since the latter captures the essence of the process in a more detailed description than the

emotional description of suicide” (p.36). The study has identified that the federal law has left the

decision to conduct euthanasia to various state laws since each American state should make its

legal decision basing on the presented cases and the view of most people in that particular state.

Questions such as 'under what circumstances should euthanasia be ethical?" and if "they should

be regulated legally" (p.37) have been raised in the study. I agree with the author on some of the

reasons indicated in the study for physician-assisted dying, including that dying patients must

choose euthanasia to avoid unwanted suffering and pain. However, I cannot entirely agree with

the suggestion; one of the ethical considerations for euthanasia is that it lowers the medical cost

since researches indicated that a minimal margin reduces the cost. Moreover, I agree with the

definition of euthanasia as physician-assisted dying since it gives the whole practice an excellent

medical essence. The articles will enable more understanding of how people view the practice as

unethical due to the physician's oath of not harming euthanasia as causing harm to the patients

and that most Americans support euthanasia for varying illnesses, but the results may vary.

Kumar, A., Mehra, A., & Avasthi, A. (2021). Euthanasia: A Debate—For and Against.

The current article by Kumar et al. (2021) attempts to review the controversy following

euthanasia following the recent legalization by the Indian Supreme Court. The present study

seeks to understand the changes over time and how this has affected the forces for and opposing

euthanasia. It has now become possible in many countries. According to the article, “euthanasia

was initially described as a gentle, good, and easy death” (p.2). However, this definition has

changed over time, as indicated, and the current study identifies the various dimensions of

physician-assisted suicide. Kumar and associates have identified that “euthanasia can be

considered a moral and ethical dilemma” (p.2). The study has identified that the hypocritical oath

by physicians not to harm forms the basis of the ethical issues since it condemns practices such

as euthanasia which practically harm the patients they vowed not to harm. The Indian medical

council has considered euthanasia to be unethical. The study has also identified that religion

condemns euthanasia from Christians, Judaism, and Hinduism alike view the practice opposing

their views of death.

Additionally, considering the philosophical ideas of euthanasia, the study identifies that

death is autonomy and everyone has a right to their own body. I concur with the study that death

should be a private matter and that patients have the right to die with dignity. The study has

helped identify how the idea of euthanasia evolved from the Greeks to the current definitions.

This will be essential in future studies to identify if the practice of euthanasia should be

considered moral according to its definition.

Porter, K., & Warburton, K. G. (2018). Physicians' views on current legislation around

euthanasia and assisted suicide: Results of surveys commissioned by the Royal College

of Physicians. Future Healthcare Journal, 5(1), 30.

According to Porter & Warburton (2018), physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia have

been a subject of controversial debate for an extended period in the UK and worldwide. The

current article considered two surveys by the Royal College of Physicians which gauged the

members on their physician views on assisted death. According to the committee of the House of

Lords on health, euthanasia has been identified as "a deliberate intervention taken with the intent

to end life."(p. 30). According to the initials studied survey of 2006, the study identified that

three attempts were made to legalize assisted dying but were rejected by a majority vote. The bill

indicated that the doctors would be allowed to administer a fatal dose to patients to self-

administer. The question was raised in parliament by the RCP seeking their views on whether

the law should be changed to legalize euthanasia, but it was rejected. Instead, the

parliamentarians advocated for better end-of-life care.

Additionally, the study considered the 2014 survey on whether the law should be changed

to allow physician-assisted death. According to the survey, health specialists objected to the

move to legalize physician-assisted death “each physician was entitled to taking their opinion

and express their views regarding euthanasia” (p. 32). The current study has compared both

surveys identifying that the "majority did not support the legalization of euthanasia” (p.32).

However, the current has a limitation in that the study has portrayed that they do not indicate the

views of the UK general population. According to various studies conducted among the general

population, most favored law changes to legalize euthanasia. The study has identified that

euthanasia remains illegal in the UK despite the different attempts to change the law, but this

debate is likely to be revisited. I agree with the study that physicians should oppose changes in

legislation surrounding euthanasia and maintain that good health care should be provided to

patients to give them a dignified death. The study will help research the various legalizations on

euthanasia in the UK and the various changes in the law regarding euthanasia and their moral

impact.

Denys, D. (2018). Is euthanasia psychiatric treatment? The struggle with death on request in the

Netherlands.LAmerican journal of psychiatry,L175(9), 822-823.

The article has identified that in the Netherlands, euthanasia is legally based on two

principles; the principle of compassion and autonomy. However, according to the current article

by Denys (2018), the act to legalize euthanasia has led to a “great debate that exceeds the

medical decisions making and is mainly grounded on philosophical and ethical views” (p.822).

Physicians’ proponents of euthanasia argue that “excluding patients who meet the due care

criteria is biased, as psychiatric distress may be worse than bodily pain” (p.822). Moreover,

euthanasia provides an honorable alternative to patients who would otherwise commit suicide

and considering a request for suicide assistance is part of a psychiatrist's responsibility. Denys

has argued that despite the controversy on the main question whether euthanasia should be an

option, there exists moral and health dilemmas regarding the decisions for the practice” (p. 823).

and health decisions to be made Arguments against euthanasia claim that the measures for

psychiatric distress are less objective than those for somatic suffering, that psychiatric disorders

are not life-threatening themselves. The distinction between disorder-related and suffering-

related desire to die is difficult to make. I agree with the study that psychiatrist may feel

powerless when faced with a request for euthanasia. This can be seen as moral discomfort.

“Moral distress occurs when moral choices and acts "of doing the right thing" are hampered by

conflicts of interest or public expectations” (p. 823). It arises for psychiatrists to fulfill two

opposing roles: they are held responsible for treating mental illness and preserving life.

Nonetheless, euthanasia is a hotly debated topic in the Netherlands. The existing rule of active

euthanasia has considerable popular support, and it is projected that psychiatric patients' requests

will grow in the Netherlands. The article has indicated three factors that have contributed to the

rise in the debate: the euthanasia legislation, the function of psychiatry, and societal changes.

Moreover, the study has helped identify that despite the perspective taken on euthanasia, it will

always lead to a terminal effect.

References

Banović, B., Turanjanin, V., & Miloradović, A. (2017). An ethical review of euthanasia and

physician-assisted suicide. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 46(2), 173.

Cholbi, M. (2015). Kant on euthanasia and the duty to die: clearing the air. Journal of Medical

Ethics, 41(8), 607-610.