Barone and Unguru’s (2017) article focuses on ethical, social, and cultural aspects of pediatric euthanasia in different countries. The authors argue that euthanasia may be considered iatrogenic when its aim is to stop “unbearable suffering” (Barone & Unguru, 2017, p. 803). In many countries, pediatric euthanasia is still unacceptable due to the belief that it will be abused or overused if it is legally allowed. From a Christian perspective, although euthanasia may be justified, it will not be considered iatrogenic because it will lead to death, which is morally impermissible (Barone & Unguru, 2017). The authors conclude that different stakeholders should be engaged in the care of dying persons to ensure that euthanasia will not cause harm but reduce suffering.
The reviewed article is recent and all information is current. The authors use relevant academic and scientific sources to support their arguments. The writing is unbiased, all possible prejudiced or offensive words and phrases are omitted. Barone and Unguru (2017) consider positive and negative views of euthanasia in their article. The authors provide an alternative option to euthanasia as palliative sedation, giving the readers the possibility to choose between these two methods of relieving unbearable suffering.
The strongest point of the article is its focus on the physician’s intent rather than their action. The authors claim that if the physician’s intent is to relieve ache and reduce torments, euthanasia will be more “ethically and morally acceptable […] for responding to suffering in young patients” (Barone & Unguru, 2017, p. 809). The weakest point is the lack of analysis of other factors’ influence on the process of euthanasia. The authors mention the laws and religious beliefs affecting medical death, such as “a Supreme Court statement that minors have a right” to make their decision” (p. 806). However, they do not provide enough evidence on how these factors impact the physician’s role in this process.
The article by Pesut et al. (2019) focuses on the role of nurses in aided death procedures. The authors review the experience of 55 nurses from three countries, taking into account three main challenges encountered by nurses: absence of clear guidance, lack of professional collaboration, and role ambiguity (Pesut et al., 2019). The scientists conclude that nurses have a central role in euthanasia processes, which means that it is important to develop their expertise in assisted dying.
The article is relevant, and all information used is current. The writing is unbiased, and the authors include opposite views on assisted death in their research. The strongest point is the review of nurses’ primary experience for synthesis and analysis. For example, the Canadian nurses “perceived themselves as pioneers in a historic role,” which means that they were not informed about possible implications and challenges that might occur during euthanasia (Pesut et al., 2019, p. 225). The article’s weakness is the limited number of reviewed resources. The authors used only six articles, which is not enough for credible research.
The third article reveals the subject of nursing and euthanasia. Pesut et al. (2020) review ethical arguments related to assisted death and nursing. The authors assessed 44 articles related to the analyzed subject. The researchers discovered that the role of nurses in euthanasia is underestimated. Although nurses do not partake in decision-making connected to aided death, they are responsible for clients’ and their family members’ well-being before and during this process.
The writing is unbiased, relevant, and current, but some of the sources used are older than ten years. The main strength of the article is its focus on both pros and cons of euthanasia. For example, in virtue terms, “euthanasia facilitates eudaimonia (flourishing, living well)” because if a person does not die well, the goal of flourishing for a patient and a professional will be frustrated (Pesut et al., 2020, p. 160). Nevertheless, the weakness of the article is the lack of information about ethical issues of assisted death “in the context of nursing practice” (p. 163). Due to this limitation and the use of only English language literature, the article cannot provide a full analysis of the implications of euthanasia in nursing.
References
Barone, S., & Unguru, Y. (2017). Should euthanasia be considered iatrogenic? AMA Journal of Ethics, 19(8), 802-814. Web.
Pesut, B., Thorne, S., Greig, M., Fulton, A., Janke, R., & Vis-Dunbar, R. (2019). Ethical, policy, and practice implications of nurses’ experiences with assisted death: A synthesis. Advances in Nursing Science, 42(3), 216-230. Web.
Pesut, B., Greig, M., Thorne, S., Storch, J., Burgess, M., Tishelman, C., Chambaere, K., & Janke, R. (2020). Nursing and euthanasia: A narrative review of the nursing ethics literature. Nursing Ethics, 27(1), 152-167. Web.