Course
Marianaadelagun
2 years ago
25
files (5)REVISEDPAPERFILEcopy.docx
Annotatedbibliography.docx
- F2874969-03E0-49AA-A069-FDA22D5F287F.jpeg
- 26DBFCBC-A717-4040-8181-B11036F99643.jpeg
- BFCB7F47-92C9-4E1D-BF6F-0879186352D8.jpeg
REVISEDPAPERFILEcopy.docx
2
Unraveling the Controversy of Euthanasia through Ethical Theories and Professional Codes
Introduction
The term euthanasia(This is great but reference where this information was obtained.) stands for the act of consciously eliminating a person’s life, which gives rise to controversy regarding its moral implications and consequences. On one of the extreme ends, death with dignity proponents emphasizes a choice for an honorable exit from unbearably painful life, while at another corner are those who highlight the sanctity of human life and possible abuses that may occur due to episodes of culture. The opening section (Please explain the topic and provide statistical information prior to sharing what is in the body
of paper) . thus creates an encompassing examination of the moral topography, where opposing views on euthanasia and dissection are reflected with critical reflection upon their arguments via ethical egoism or social contract theory alongside appropriate professional code.
Details of the ethical positional debates
An intrinsic opposition distinguishes the moral argument for euthanasia between the two conflicting positions guided separately by particular ethical principles. On the contrary, euthanasia advocates advocate strongly since they are struggling to recognize a person's right to autonomy and self-determination after death (Carminati, 2020). This position views personal liberty and maintains that individuals with intolerable pain should have the ability to choose a dignified manner of death without excruciating more. Supporters of euthanasia primarily rely on the principle of mercy, defining compassionate and humane assisted death as a good option for terminal illnesses or irreversible pain.
On the contrary, those opposed to euthanasia stubbornly stress the inherent value and inviolability of human life when arguing that deliberately hastening death contradicts its natural worth. In this sense, life is considered sacred, and saving it takes precedence over free conduct (This needs to be explained. It is not clear what you are saying). This perspective often encounters religions and cultures, stressing the moral responsibility of saving a life at all costs (Carminati, 2020). The opponents argue that legalizing euthanasia might lead to undesirable consequences, including potential abuses, a slope effect leading towards involuntary euthanasia, and a weakening of overall societal values about appreciating life.
Amidst these opposing arguments, each side has powerful moral reasons supporting their case. Advocates( this needs to be explained. It is not clear what you are saying) focus on liberty, grace, and the removal of unbearable pains that present euthanasia as a caring act in response to terminal illness (Carminati, 2020). On the other hand, opponents concentrate on such aspects as the intrinsic value of life itself and ethical questions regarding possible abuses if death acceleration becomes legal. As such, the concern of euthanasia over an important decision concerning autonomy and sanctity of life generates a type of tension that needs some justifiable deliberation from these ethical perspectives to curb that.
Professional Communication
Moreover, negotiating communication that is empathetic and considerate has to be implemented so that healthcare practitioners can overcome professional duties versus family morality dilemmas. Factors that contribute to a broader perspective include the family views of patients, their cultural makeup, and the uniqueness of each familial group. Health professionals are called to establish environments that promote dialogues where families discuss their concerns and values without violating the ethical standards of professional practice. The process of communication extends to interdisciplinary variations among medical professionals. The ethics of euthanasia, however, are considered in terms of discussion with various experts, such as ethicists, psychologists, and social workers. It is critical to ensure communication with these professionals so they can fully understand the ethical implications and an acceptable approach to professional duties and relations between family members.
Ethical Egoism Perspective
Regarding euthanasia from the ethical egoist perspective, this principle will be discussed along with the rationalization that people should act in their self-interest as well as happiness first. Concerning euthanasia, an ethical egoist would be likely to advocate for self-determination and autonomy about the choice of death. In the eyes of an ethical egoist, things that revolve around desiring to try and reduce pain would be considered; having some rightful ownership over one’s life is something else discussed, as is abandoning oneself from this world (Carminati & Gao Héliot, 2023). This is because people are the best at determining what fits them due to their subjective experiences and values, which have many differences among themselves. However, there is a problem when it comes to the loyalty of a community. The interpretation of ethical egoism could be disregarding communal benefit, thus setting individual wants aside from the probable reality that society would see if legal euthanasia took over.
Following the right action based on ethical egoism requires balancing personal freedom and social good. It is essential to consider the effect of personal responsibility during an ethical assessment concerning possible social outcomes. Even though ethical egoism emphasizes individual rights, its consequences should be addressed for the benefit of many (Carminati & Héliot 2019). This could only be achieved through the considerate and careful implementation of E uthanasia-related( What are these polices? Help me understand your topic with research and credible evidence.) policies, or it should not result in individual thinking beyond other societal influences playing various roles in end-of-life decisions. As a result, the ethical egoist perspective creates critical awareness towards establishing rights and community ethics concerning euthanasia.
Conclusion
The study of three dimensions regarding euthanasia, including ethical egoism, social contract ethics, and ethical codes, indicates that it is diverse. The consistency of individual autonomy when relying on communal interests is asserted by ethical egoism. Social contract ethics is based on society’s consent but also implies a tradeoff between one’s liberty and social duties. Interestingly, even the professional tenets of ethics, including the AMA and ANA, indicate how hard it is to practice medicine. However, a person should separate saving lives from respecting an individual's independence. Being a controversial, ethical issue, euthanasia needs debates that would investigate both individual rights and collective virtues as the instruments of democracy.
References
Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2023). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education
Carminati, L. (2020). Healthcare professionals' identity conflict in ethically-charged situations: an investigation of individual and socio-ethical dynamics (Doctoral dissertation, University of Surrey).
Carminati, L., & Gao Héliot, Y. (2023). Multilevel dynamics of moral identity conflict: professional and personal values in ethically-charged situations. Ethics & Behavior, 33(1), 37-54.
Carminati, L., & Héliot, Y. (2019). Between multiple identities and personal struggles: Healthcare professionals’ identity conflict perception and responses in challenging situations. In Proceedings of the European Academy of Management Annual Conference 2019 (EURAM 2019). European Academy of Management.
Annotatedbibliography.docx
8
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Annotated Bibliography
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Annotated Bibliography
The debate surrounding euthanasia involves multifaceted communal and personal ethical factors shaping the moral position of both opponents and advocates. For personal ethical factors, it may include considerations of suffering, autonomy, dignity, and quality of life (Scopetti et al., 2023). Proponents of euthanasia in most cases prioritize individual autonomy, where they argue that there is a need for individuals to have the right to make decisions about their life, including choosing euthanasia to end their suffering. They may emphasize the need to relieve unbearable pain and preserve dignity in the face of irreversible suffering or terminal illness (Nicolini et al., 2022). Conversely, opponents prioritize communal ethical factors such as the potential for abuse, the sanctity of life, and the impact on societal values. They argue that allowing euthanasia tends to undermine human life value and leads to slippery slope effects—there is a likelihood of extending the practice beyond voluntary cases to euthanasia for non-terminal conditions or involuntary euthanasia. Similarly, opponents raise concerns about the impact on vulnerable populations including the disabled or elderly, who may be pressured to end their lives prematurely.
Kantian ethics
It provides a framework that allows the evaluation of ethical positions. According to the categorical imperative, one should act according to maxims that could be universal laws. When applied to the debate, advocates argue that allowing individuals to end their lives in cases of suffering could be universalized as a principle of relieving suffering and respecting autonomy (Abakare, 2021). However, opponents may argue that the act cannot be universalized as it could create harmful consequences for society and undermine the inherent human life value. Thus, one must consider whether allowing the act could be a means to end a life or could be consistent with treating all rational beings fairly—proponents may argue that the act respects individual’s dignity and autonomy as it allows them to make choices about their lives, while opponents may consider it as a means to end suffering hence violating categorical imperative.
Annotated bibliography
Picón-Jaimes, Y. A., Lozada-Martinez, I. D., Orozco-Chinome, J. E., Montaña-Gómez, L. M., Bolaño-Romero, M. P., Moscote-Salazar, L. R., ... & Rahman, S. (2022). Euthanasia and assisted suicide: An in-depth review of relevant historical aspects. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 75, 103380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103380
The article explores euthanasia and assisted suicide and traces their historical evolution. It defines them as deliberate actions that provide means for people to end their own lives. Essentially, the overview covers significant debate, events, and legal frameworks, providing insights into legal, moral, and ethical considerations that surround end-of-life care. "The relevance of the topic and the extensive discussion that it has had in recent months due to the COVID-19 pandemic added to the particular interest of bioethics in this topic and the need to know the point of view of doctors and other health professionals on euthanasia and assisted suicide" (p. 1).
The article raises ethical dilemmas related to autonomy, sanctity of life, and the role of health practitioners. It discusses ongoing challenges and debates in establishing consistent legal frameworks for euthanasia and assisted suicide. Philosophical, religious, and cultural beliefs intersect with medical ethics, hence shaping public and legislative opinion on end-of-life issues. According to the article, "It is essential to know the point of view of physicians on euthanasia and assisted suicide, especially taking into account that these professionals who provide care and accompany patients during this moment, which, if approved, would involve the medical community in both public and private health systems" (p. 1).
I agree with the overall exploration and the article's emphasis on considering ethical principles and diverse perspectives. The historical overview helps to frame further discussions and research on the topic by providing valuable context for contemporary debates. Overall, the article is essential for its examination and contributes to a deeper understanding of the multifaceted issues surrounding end-of-life care and decision-making.
Scopetti, M., Morena, D., Padovano, M., Manetti, F., Di Fazio, N., Delogu, G., ... & Fineschi, V. (2023, May). Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in Mental Disorders: Ethical Positions in the Debate between Proportionality, Dignity, and the Right to Die. In Healthcare (Vol. 11, No. 10, p. 1470). MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11101470
The article delves into intricate social, legal, and ethical dimensions surrounding euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (E/PAS). It analyzes aspects such as patient suffering, autonomy, and societal attitudes toward death, pointing to the challenge of determining E/PAS eligibility, particularly in cases that involve advanced dementia and mental illness. There exists an overlap between suicidal ideation and psychiatric disorders that complicate assessments of patient autonomy and E/PAS eligibility criteria. Scopetti et al. (2023) raise the "slippery slope" argument and suggest that broadening eligibility criteria may lead to societal attitudes towards disability and suffering and E/PAS normalization, among other unintended consequences. Healthcare practitioners face emotional distress and ethical dilemmas when involved in E/PAS cases especially ones related to advanced dementia or psychiatric disorders.
“The “slippery slope” metaphor has been proposed to describe the condition for which initially excluded cases are progressively admitted in practice, both through legislative changes and jurisprudential innovations on the subject.” I agree with the call for nuanced approaches to end-of-life and collaboration to develop consistent regulations of E/PAS. "From an ethical perspective, the principle of not ending someone’s life should not be absolute. There should be cases of exception in which it would be morally legitimate, and probably mandatory, to fulfill a patient’s request to be helped to die" The article is important in providing a comprehensive overview of social, legal, and ethical dimensions of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Overall, it has helped me focus my understanding by exploring key controversies.
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291720001543
The review on EAS for psychiatric disorders delves into contention domains, including irremediability, decisional capacity, and medicine and psychiatry goals. Parity's arguments assert that permitting EAS for physical illness should also apply to psychiatric disorders. The notion has been supported by different authors, arguing that suffering justifies EAS regardless of its origin. Also, some question the compatibility of psychiatric EAS with suicide prevention policies, and some argue that it prevents suicides.
Consequently, the review emphasizes the need for further research aimed at informing policy-making, particularly in light of the increase in ethical complexities and several psychiatric EAS cases. According to the article, "Parity arguments largely relied on the assumption that suffering is the justification for EAS in terminal, physical illness.” This shows the central premise of the argument, underscoring its importance in the debate. Overall, the article has helped me recognize the issue's complexity and multiple perspectives at play, hence acting as a guide toward a better understanding of the subject matter.
Borovecki, A., Curkovic, M., Nikodem, K., Oreskovic, S., Novak, M., Rubic, F., ... & Gastmans, C. (2022). Attitudes about withholding or withdrawing life-prolonging treatment, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and physician-assisted suicide: a cross-sectional survey among the general public in Croatia. BMC Medical Ethics, 23(1), 1-16. https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-022-00751-6
The article highlights the Croatian population's attitudes toward decisions to end life, particularly focusing on withdrawing euthanasia, life-prolonging treatment physical-assisted suicide, and assisted suicide. This study reveals low acceptance of treatment withdrawal compared to other countries, where respondents’ attitudes are influenced by social and cultural factors. Also, respondents were concerned about the need for legal regulation of EAS and potential abuse. From the article's argument, I agree with the need to consider social and cultural factors in understanding attitudes toward end-of-life care. Similarly, I recognize the article’s argument on the need for further exploration of underlying ethical considerations and motivations driving the public views on EAS issues.
"Respondents who hold a more open approach to euthanasia tend to endorse a liberal worldview, be less religious, have a higher level of education, be younger, and be from regional centers" (p. 15). This highlights the attitudinal and demographic factors associated with supporting euthanasia. Also, the article highlighted the need for legal frameworks to address evolving attitudes towards end-of-life practices. "Our research showed a small drop in agreement with the absolute prohibition of the practice by law." Overall, this article assisted me in understanding the complexities surrounding euthanasia decisions, including all ethical social, and cultural dimensions involved. The article underscored the importance of informed decisions among the public and further research to address all challenges and controversies surrounding the area.
Calati, R., Olié, E., Dassa, D., Gramaglia, C., Guillaume, S., Madeddu, F., & Courtet, P. (2021). Euthanasia and assisted suicide in psychiatric patients: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of psychiatric research, 135, 153-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2020.12.006
In their work, Calati et al. (2021) explore the complexities surrounding EAS requests in psychiatric patients. The authors discuss the challenges of assessing treatment efficacy and determining irremediable suffering in psychiatric disorders. These controversies arise regarding psychopathology's influence on the therapeutic effect of the EAS evaluation process and decision-making capacity.
"Patients requesting pEAS should have intact decision capacity." Therefore, there is a need to assess the patient’s ability to make informed choices. While there is a need to address patients’ suffering, I agree with the need to ensure ongoing recovery-oriented care and a rigorous evaluation process. The article emphasizes the need to ensure clear criteria and standardized assessments, and I agree with the argument as it can assist in safeguarding vulnerable patients’ autonomy and well-being. Ultimately, the article has deepened my understanding of the ethical dilemmas surrounding euthanasia among psychiatric patients. it has helped me understand and appreciate the complexities involved in assessing the therapeutic evaluation process potential and decision-making capacity.
References
Abakare, C. O. (2021). Kantian Ethics And The Hesc Research: A Philosophical Exploration.
Borovecki, A., Curkovic, M., Nikodem, K., Oreskovic, S., Novak, M., Rubic, F., ... & Gastmans, C. (2022). Attitudes about withholding or withdrawing life-prolonging treatment, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and physician-assisted suicide: a cross-sectional survey among the general public in Croatia. BMC Medical Ethics, 23(1), 1-16. https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-022-00751-6
Calati, R., Olié, E., Dassa, D., Gramaglia, C., Guillaume, S., Madeddu, F., & Courtet, P. (2021). Euthanasia and assisted suicide in psychiatric patients: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of psychiatric research, 135, 153-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2020.12.006
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291720001543
Picón-Jaimes, Y. A., Lozada-Martinez, I. D., Orozco-Chinome, J. E., Montaña-Gómez, L. M., Bolaño-Romero, M. P., Moscote-Salazar, L. R., ... & Rahman, S. (2022). Euthanasia and assisted suicide: An in-depth review of relevant historical aspects. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 75, 103380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103380
Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2023). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill
Education
Scopetti, M., Morena, D., Padovano, M., Manetti, F., Di Fazio, N., Delogu, G., ... & Fineschi, V. (2023, May). Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in Mental Disorders: Ethical Positions in the Debate between Proportionality, Dignity, and the Right to Die. In Healthcare (Vol. 11, No. 10, p. 1470). MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11101470
