Introduction
Euthanasia is considered one of the most significant ethical issues raised in healthcare. Its explanation is quite simple, although having ambiguous implications. According to Caldwell (2020), euthanasia can be considered from the perspective of a patient willing to end his life due to several reasons, like insufferable pain. However, there is no written consent, and his relatives are not willing to accept it. This simple explanation controversially puts the question of death to assess who has the right choice in this question. The paper implies that euthanasia will still be considered controversial due to the basic moral principles contradicting each other and an ambiguous legal framework that has to review each case separately.
Discussion
Ethical issue of Euthanasia stands from three concepts – autonomy, sanctity, and doctor-patient relationship. According to Fontalis et al. (2018), one type of euthanasia – assisted dying has two major camps. Advocates of assisted dying focus on autonomy, freedom of choice and the rationale for ending suffering. On the other hand, it is argued whether assisted death contradicts constitutional rights and might impact the doctor-patient relationship. As noted above, autonomy is considered an essential principle for any individual. Similarly, these principles are equally vital in healthcare ethics. Fontalis et al. (2018) describe autonomy as an adult making an informed decision on his care and treatment. In this case, euthanasia should be considered an informed decision of an individual suffering from illness or pain. However, it is also ambiguous for older people or children and those who had conscious clarity but might have lost it due to suffering. In this case, it lies to the doctor’s evaluation of the patient’s condition to grant him autonomy, which implies possible coercion or poor guidance to the informed consent.
In this sense, another important principle is life’s sanctity. In these terms, the sanctity does not allow to assist in death due to any life’s value. According to Lockhart et al. (2022), the sanctity stands as the crucial element for euthanasia opposing groups. Another perspective, doctor-patient interactions stands from the perspective of further interactions. As doctor-patient relationships are usually based on trust and respect, assisted dying can distract these interactions and force them to abandon the first premise of causing no harm.
One of the legal issues is that the framework of International Human Rights contradicts each other when applied to the euthanasia. In terms of the legal framework, one of the strong bases for euthanasia is Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (Fontalis et al., 2018), which implies the right to respect private and family life. Autonomy, in this case, is supported by this article, as it stands for the right of an individual to manage his circumstances, even death. On the other hand, the described sanctity of life is justified by Article 2 of a similar convention that proves the right to life that prohibits any kind of taking of life or assisting in death (Fontalis et al., 2018). Thus, the legal framework contradicts the basic principles and rights of an individual.
One of the cases that can be reviewed in the question of euthanasia is the Debby Purdie case in 1995(Frontalis et al., 2018). As Debbie Purdy was suffering from multiple sclerosis, she complied with a court that euthanasia and assisted dying has ambiguous prosecution guidelines (Fontalis et al., 2018). As she wanted to know if her husband would consider committing a crime if taken her abroad and accepted the euthanasia procedure, she preliminary won the case in 2009. Due to this, the government of the UK issued the first assisted dying prosecution guidelines to explain if that case will be considered a crime (Fontalis et al., 2018). The Director of Public Prosecutions concluded that each case would be reviewed individually based on different factors of assisted dying and the degree of encouragement to accept euthanasia. Fontalis et al. (2018) also imply that no case of crime due to assisting and encouraging to travel abroad and accept euthanasia was recorded by the court.
As euthanasia stands ethically and legally controversial, each healthcare professional should stick to the method of identifying the dilemma. After reviewing and replying to three questions provided by Caldwell (2020), a healthcare professional should be able to decide on an ethical dilemma. Although simple, this recommendation can identify boundaries that professionals should not cross. As in the case of euthanasia, this is the possible framework with which assisting death can be either illegal or unethical. Caldwell (2020) points to the three-step ethical decision-making model, in which healthcare professionals should answer three questions:
- Is it legal?
- Is it balanced?
- How does it make me feel?
Conclusion
The modern topic of euthanasia stands as a controversial topic that implies different perspectives. Each viewpoint uses various principles and legal frameworks to justify its point of view, increasing the level of discourse. On the international level, there is no specific agreement on the morality and legality of euthanasia, as it depends on each country. Still, while basic principles will contradict each other, euthanasia remains controversial and ambiguous.
References
Caldwell, C. (2020). Applied Law & Ethics for Health Professionals. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Fontalis A., Prousali E., Kulkarni K. (2018). Euthanasia and assisted dying: what is the current position and what are the key arguments informing the debate?Journal of Royal Society of Medicine, 111(11), 407-413. Web.
Lockhart C., Lee C.H.J., Sibley C.G. & Osborne D. (2022). The sanctity of life: The role of purity in attitudes towards abortion and euthanasia. International Journal of Psychology, 58(1), 16-29. Web.