Ethics and Euthanasia Essay Example

Ethics and Euthanasia Essay Example Ethics and Euthanasia Paper Ethics and Euthanasia Paper Euthanasia or mercy killing has long been a debated topic. The question is whether it is humane for a person to choose his own death when it is inevitable and prolonging his/her life would only lengthen his/her suffering. It may be so when the patient still has the capacity to acknowledge the act but in some cases, the patient can no longer respond to any given stimuli. In these special cases, close relatives are given the right to decide for the patient but this should still be subject to some regulation as giving the such decision-making power to another person may lead to abuse. It is important to know the facts behind euthanasia and how it is classified before discussing the moral and ethical issues associated with it. It is classified into four types which are passive and active euthanasia and voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Passive and active euthanasia are different that passive euthanasia involves â€Å"withdrawing medical treatment† and active euthanasia â€Å"is taking steps to cause the patients death†. They are both classified as a form of euthanasia but the first one is more accepted in an ethical perspective (Pregnant Pause, 2001). An example of passive euthanasia is when a patient is already fully dependent on a life support mechanism to sustain life such as a respirator. In such a case, the patient may choose to disconnect the respirator to die a painless death when he/she wishes to do so. A more classical example of passive euthanasia is a â€Å"do not resuscitate order†. In standard medical practice, when there is a threat to a patient’s life, the medical staff will try to resuscitate him/her but when the medical staff chooses not to do so, this is considered as passive euthanasia. On the other hand, active euthanasia which is the more controversial form of mercy killing involves ingesting into the patient poison which usually is an overdose of painkillers and sleeping pills such as morphine. In comparison, active euthanasia is subject to a lot of debate thus legalizing it would result in much clamor for the religious sector whereas there is not much moral and ethical arguments against passive euthanasia (Pregnant Pause, 2001). Euthanasia is also categorized as voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia means that the patient has consented in the termination of life-support or medical treatment while involuntary euthanasia is euthanasia in the absence of a consensus from the patient. This may be due to the inability of the patient to make decisions for himself in whom close relatives are given the right to decide for them (Pregnant Pause, 2001). Assisted suicide is another form of killing although it is difficult to determine whether it classifies as a form of euthanasia or not. In this method, the doctor gives the patient access to ways to end his/her life. The doctor has no direct involvement because he will not administer the drug to the patient. The patient then has to make the decision if he/she would use the provided means to end his/her life. This is assisted suicide (Pregnant Pause, 2001). Now, looking at the moral and ethical aspects, euthanasia, depending on how it is performed and the circumstances when it is performed determines whether is right or wrong. If the euthanasia is passive or voluntary, then, there is not much issue because the patient is aware of the consequences and he has consented but when euthanasia is active or involuntary, many ethical issues may be encountered such as the value of life which troubles many religious groups. For involuntary euthanasia, the patient has not consented and the relatives are the ones that made the decision for them. The fear here is that the relatives might make the decision that the patient would not naturally want. This is a highly controversial topic also considering the financial implications of the death of the patient (Pregnant Pause, 2001). The use of morphine drips has always been associated with mercy killing. Morphine is particularly used as a pain reliever and its side effects include respiratory depression. Many believe that the use of morphine shortens the life of a person and many also fear its addictive properties. It is also perceived as a normal instrument for inducing euthanasia. A proper dose of morphine is not a big deal but in bigger doses, its medical components are being used to peacefully kill someone (Esolen, 2006). There are many possible scenarios wherein morphine drips can be used to help people who are in great pain. Technically, instantly increasing the dosage to potentially fatal levels, morphine drips may be considered as active euthanasia for those who have not developed a tolerance for the drug. However, on one aspect, this is better than passive euthanasia wherein you just let the patient writhe in pain as the medical staff do nothing to help. The use of morphine drips may be recognized as a humane way of mercy killing because morphine eliminates pain and ensures that the patient dies a painless death (Esolen, 2006) According to Dr. Thomas Preston,the use of morphine drips â€Å"is undeniably euthanasia, hidden by the cosmetics of professional tradition and language†. Continuous injection of morphine into the bloodstream will eventually lead to death due to cessation of the breathing function. Preston also indicated that the use of morphine drips is the â€Å"societys wink to euthanasia†. He also attested that euthanasia is now a widespread practice in spite of the existence of laws that prohibit such (When Death is Sought, 1997). If done intentionally, significantly increasing the dosage of morphine will undeniably cause death but characterizing morphine drips as a â€Å"covert form of euthanasia† is inaccurate. The relation of morphine drips and patient deaths has no clear relationship. Due to the fact they people rapidly develop a tolerance to the drug, doses may be increases and as long as the drug is properly administered, there seems to be no tolerance limit. The claim that morphine drips hastens the death of the patient who have not developed tolerance bears no ground (When Death is Sought, 1997). Euthanasia should not be much of a moral issue; instead it should be regarded as an opportunity to be able to help people. Sometimes, it is much better to die in comfort than to live in pain. Patients should be given the opportunity to choose between the two available options. If morphine drip is a viable and effective way to attain such, then, it should in no manner be banned from use. It is true that life is of utmost importance but when there is extreme pain and suffering, plus the fact that the patient would not be living long enough because of a terminal disease, ending life to end suffering is never a bad alternative. Euthanasia should be done when the patient requests it. It should also be recommended in medical practice whenever viable instead of providing false hopes. Some argue that as humans have a right to life but they also have a right to death. References Pregnant Pause. 20 November 2001. Types of Euthanasia. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from pregnantpause. org/euth/types. htm Anthony, Esolen. 18 January 2006. Lethal Drips. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from http://merecomments. typepad. com/merecomments/2006/01/_in_the_matter_. html The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law. 1997 April. When Death is Sought. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from http://wings. buffalo. edu/faculty/research/bioethics/suppl. html