Advancements in philosophy and ethics and growth in the understanding of pain in the medical context form the theoretical basis for discussions of euthanasia in today’s society. Euthanasia (also known as mercy killing) is one of the options its proponents would like terminally ill patients to have. This paper considers the ethical issues surrounding euthanasia.
Euthanasia is the deliberate termination of life with the intention of relieving a patient from pain and suffering (Youngner and Kimsma 2). Proponents of euthanasia believe that it is unethical to keep a patient alive if the patient is constantly in pain, and has no reasonable prospect of recovery.
Such a condition may arise from an accident or a terminal illness such as cancer. Under these circumstances, the proponents advocate for mercy killing to relieve the patient from pain. After all, the medical profession exists mainly to alleviate the pain and suffering of the human body.
The ethical issues surrounding euthanasia vary based on the specific circumstances of each case (Rogers and Braunack-Mayer 42). If a patient is conscious and is capable of making his own decisions, euthanasia becomes a personal choice (voluntary euthanasia). On the other hand, if a patient is in a vegetative state or is incapable of rational decision-making, the ethical dilemmas of euthanasia become more complex.
The most important ethical dilemma related to euthanasia that medical practitioners face is the question of the right to life. The right to life is a universally accepted principle guarded by law in almost all countries. People who can ethically take away life are law enforcement officers in circumstances where there is a threat to the lives of others, or where a court sentences someone to death. Most countries do not even allow individuals to take away their own life.
The sanctity of life is a universally accepted principle, and anyone who takes away life without just cause is a murderer. This complicates the work of medical workers who handle terminally ill patients, especially those who are in a lot of pain. These medical workers must work through their own convictions about the sanctity of life. Even if such workers conclude that there may be circumstances where euthanasia is the right intervention, they must still deal with the overall ethical argument regarding the sanctity of life, regardless of its quality.
The second source of ethical conflict regarding euthanasia is a pain. Medical care providers usually aim at restoring a patient’s health and whole being. A patient who goes to the hospital for treatment usually receives medical interventions to deal with the disease and to reduce pain. Painkillers usually numb pain while the other medicines eliminate the disease from the body. In some cases, medical workers are clear from the onset that they cannot do much for a patient.
They cannot get rid of the disease, and they cannot relieve the patient’s pain. If the prognosis of a patient is gloomy, medical care providers may find it more compassionate to administer euthanasia. For instance, a patient whose condition has severely deteriorated to the extent that the doctors have run out of options may be better off dying rather than living in pain.
This also applies to patients who have lost all consciousness and have no chance of waking up. In these cases, medical workers find themselves in ethical dilemmas on whether to administer involuntary euthanasia (Youngner and Kimsma 4).
Finally, each person has a right to life. If someone is in a prolonged coma and has no reasonable prospect of regaining consciousness, do medical workers, and family members have a moral right to decide on this person’s fate without his participation? In other words, is involuntary euthanasia ethical? (Youngner and Kimsma 4) These issues influence current thinking on euthanasia.
Works Cited
Rogers, Wendy A and Annette J Braunack-Mayer. Practical Ethics for General Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.
Youngner, Stuart J and Gerrit K Kimsma. Physician-Assisted Death in Perspective: Assessing the Dutch Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Print.