Introduction
A theory of justice is a set of principles and provisions governing ethical and legal relationships. In medical ethics, principles of justice are necessary to provide medical care based on the patient’s rights, the duties of physicians, and moral principles. Medical professionals make various treatment decisions based on the principles of fair treatment of patients. Among the many issues affecting principles of justice and medical ethics is the legalization of active euthanasia.
The Active Euthanasia Debate
Active euthanasia is a medical intervention given to a patient to end their life, i.e., death. Active euthanasia is based on the patient’s desire to end his life, which arises for various reasons, most often caused by unbearable suffering due to a terminal diagnosis. Voluntary euthanasia raises many more questions than passive euthanasia because the patient has difficulty understanding the concept of ending life.
In the case of passive euthanasia, euthanasia is necessary because of the pointlessness of continuing life-sustaining treatment (Vaughn 94). For example, the case of Terri Schiavo shows that people tend to accept the necessity of such procedures because a “vegetative state without consciousness” cannot be life (551). Even physicians believe that passive euthanasia is not contrary to ethical principles.
At the same time, voluntary euthanasia implies that the patient understands the consequences of euthanasia. “Mercy killing” describes active voluntary euthanasia, which may bring more controversy to the euthanasia debate because of the specific terminology (553). However, the right to voluntary euthanasia is evolving, and some states are introducing it into their healthcare policies.
Is Euthanasia Justified?
It is medical ethics to understand and consider patients’ interests and opinions regarding treatment, as cooperation contributes to a favorable outcome of medical interventions. Nevertheless, the ambiguity of euthanasia continues to be debated in the medical space because of the legal and ethical dimensions. Policies related to active euthanasia are also varied, with some countries prohibiting such procedures. Active euthanasia involves the administration of various medications that result in a painless death. According to the ethics of medical care, doctors cannot perform interventions that cause harm to the patient (Vaughn 92).
Based on this, terminating interventions cannot be performed. According to surveys, about half of physicians believe physician-assisted suicide is acceptable (555; Vaughn 93). The debate about euthanasia in the medical community is quite acute because advances in technology and pharmaceuticals can potentially improve the situation with incurable diseases. Consequently, euthanasia may no longer be necessary as medicine will make it possible to treat even complicated cases.
At the same time, granting or denying euthanasia is tied to patients’ rights, which medical professionals must uphold. Every patient deserves to receive the care they need, and it is the medical staff’s job to alleviate the disease and any accompanying complications. Medicine seeks to cure not only the disease but also the spiritual condition, so patients’ psychological stability is always considered. So, the denial of service can be seen as a violation of the patient’s rights to justice and equality regarding their requests and desires.
In addition, statements about the current status of pain control medications should be considered. For example, for patients with cancer, the use of such medications is not entirely clear, as they may conflict with other medications, in which case there is no point in providing them (577). Equity theory obliges physicians to balance the services provided, so the concept of intolerable suffering must remain at the forefront of the euthanasia decision.
Several key arguments in favor of euthanasia should be considered. First, surveys show that the general population agrees that the right to death should be granted (555 and 577). The right to die is no different from other rights, and according to the principle of justice, all rights should be granted. Second, euthanasia can end the suffering that terminal patients cannot bear physically or mentally (577). Doctors must not only not harm but also not contribute to continued suffering, so the right to euthanasia is a humane way to end pain (578).
Third, there is a problem with the development of pharmaceuticals and technology that would allow for the full cessation of pain. Finally, there is no morally justifiable reason for denying the right to die if one is conscious and gives an account of one’s actions (588). Although this is a complex issue, similar to the concept of suicide, it is nevertheless the task of medicine and ethics to respect a person’s right to terminate life caused by intolerable and incompatible circumstances.
Conclusion
The justification for active euthanasia stems from understanding the reasons for its emergence in society. Euthanasia is a way to end suffering and regulate the patient’s right to die. Being conscious and imagining the consequences of euthanasia, a person should not be denied the procedure. Regarding the fair treatment of every patient and the need to respect their rights, it must be lawful to grant a patient the right to euthanasia. The right to die is as much a moral right as any other, so active euthanasia is the patient’s choice; hence, the ethical principle of minimal harm must be followed.
Works Cited
Vaughn, Lewis. Bioethics. 5th ed., Oxford University Press.