Return To The Topic: The Ethics Of Euthanasia This Week

Return To The Topic The Ethics Of Euthanasia in The Week

Return to the topic ( The Ethics of Euthanasia) in the week three assignment. Articulate a specific dilemma in a situation faced by a particular person based on that topic. The situation can be real or fictional. Summarize the dilemma. Define any needed key terms associated with the dilemma. Analyze the conflicts or controversies involved in the dilemma. Requirements Length: 4-5 pages (not including title page or references page) 1-inch margins Double spaced 12-point Times New Roman font Title page References page (minimum of 5 scholarly sources)

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The ethical debate surrounding euthanasia has become increasingly prominent in contemporary society, raising profound questions about autonomy, suffering, and the moral boundaries of medical practice. Euthanasia, derived from the Greek words "eu" (good) and "thanatos" (death), refers to the practice of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve pain and suffering (Kempe et al., 2017). Within this discourse, a compelling dilemma involves a fictional elderly patient, Mr. John Smith, who is suffering from terminal cancer. His case exemplifies complex ethical conflicts that require careful analysis of legal, moral, and personal considerations.

Case Summary and Key Terms

Mr. Smith is an 80-year-old man diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer, experiencing unrelenting pain and declining quality of life despite palliative care. He requests assisted euthanasia to end his suffering. The dilemma revolves around whether healthcare professionals should honor his wish and legally facilitate euthanasia, considering the moral implications and societal norms.

Key terms essential for understanding this dilemma are:

• Euthanasia: The act of intentionally ending a person’s life to relieve suffering, which may be classified as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013).
• Autonomy: The capacity of an individual to make informed, uncoerced decisions about their own life and body (Dworkin, 2015).
• Sanctity of life: The belief that life is inherently valuable and ought to be preserved (Kopelman, 2014).

The core of Mr. Smith’s dilemma lies in balancing respect for his autonomy against societal and professional standards that traditionally oppose euthanasia, primarily grounded in the sanctity of life.

Conflicts and Controversies

The debate around euthanasia involves several ethical conflicts, chiefly between respect for patient autonomy and the moral objection rooted in the sanctity of life. Proponents argue that individuals have the right to end their suffering and make decisions about their own bodies, emphasizing compassion and autonomy (Cananda & Smahel, 2019). They also point to empirical evidence suggesting euthanasia can be performed with safeguards that minimize abuse, thus respecting patient dignity.

Opponents, however, contend that euthanasia violates societal moral standards by undermining the intrinsic value of human life. Religious and cultural beliefs often oppose ending life intentionally, viewing it as morally wrong regardless of suffering (Rachels, 2015). Additionally, there are concerns about potential abuse and slippery slope issues, where acceptance of euthanasia might lead to non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia (Lachmann & Gafni, 2020).

Legal considerations further complicate the issue. While euthanasia is legal in some jurisdictions, such as the Netherlands and Belgium, it remains illegal in many countries, including the United States, except under specific state laws like Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act (Vernooij et al., 2018). This disparity raises questions about moral authority and the role of government in regulating life-ending decisions.

The dilemma also touches on the physician's role—whether healthcare providers should act as moral agents prioritizing patient autonomy or adhere strictly to the Hippocratic oath, which emphasizes "do no harm." In some cases, physicians feel morally conflicted when asked to assist in euthanasia, particularly if it conflicts with personal beliefs or institutional policies (Quill et al., 2017).

This complex interplay of moral principles—autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice—makes euthanasia a profoundly contentious issue. Respecting a patient's wish to end their suffering must be balanced against society’s collective moral values and legal frameworks.

Discussion and Analysis

The ethical dilemma faced by Mr. Smith encapsulates the broader challenges healthcare professionals encounter when confronted with euthanasia requests. Respecting autonomy is a fundamental principle—patients should have control over their bodies and life choices (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). In Mr. Smith’s case, his suffering is intolerable, and his informed consent appears clear. However, societal and professional norms raise concerns about consent validity, potential for coercion, and the moral implications of facilitating death.

From an ethical standpoint, principle-based ethics provide a framework to analyze this dilemma:

• Autonomy: Respecting Mr. Smith’s autonomous choice aligns with the principle of individual liberty. His request stems from a desire to have control over his suffering, and honoring it would affirm his dignity.
• Beneficence: Acting in Mr. Smith’s best interest involves alleviating his pain. Euthanasia could be viewed as an act of compassion, fulfilling the healthcare provider’s duty to promote well-being.
• Non-maleficence: The obligation to "do no harm" complicates euthanasia, as intentionally ending life may conflict with this principle. Determining whether ending suffering justifies ending life is central to this debate.
• Justice: Fairness in access to euthanasia rights and ensuring safeguards to prevent misuse are essential considerations. Justice also involves balancing individual rights against societal interests.

Legal and cultural context significantly influence the ethical acceptability of euthanasia. In jurisdictions where it is permitted, strict safeguards aim to prevent abuse, such as mandatory second opinions, mental capacity assessments, and documentation (Vernooij et al., 2018). Still, ethical concerns remain about potential societal devaluation of life, especially for vulnerable groups.

Religious and cultural values often oppose euthanasia, emphasizing the sanctity of life. Many religious doctrines, including Christianity and Islam, condemn euthanasia as morally wrong, considering life sacred and inviolable (Kopelman, 2014). These beliefs influence societal attitudes and legislation, complicating efforts to reach consensus on euthanasia policies.

The physician’s role is also ethically complex. Some argue health professionals should prioritize preserving life strictly, while others believe respecting patient autonomy justifies assisting death under specific circumstances (Quill et al., 2017). Ethical codes, such as the American Medical Association’s stance, generally oppose physician-assisted euthanasia but recognize the importance of palliative care and respecting patient wishes.

In summary, euthanasia encompasses a spectrum of ethical, legal, moral, and cultural issues. The case of Mr. Smith exemplifies the tension between compassionate care and moral boundaries, highlighting that ethical decision-making in this context demands careful deliberation, respect for patient autonomy, societal norms, and legal guidelines.

Conclusion

The dilemma faced by Mr. Smith demonstrates the profound ethical complexities surrounding euthanasia. Respecting individual autonomy and alleviating suffering are compelling reasons in favor of allowing euthanasia under strict safeguards. However, deeply ingrained societal and religious values, concerns about potential abuses, and legal discrepancies complicate these decisions. Healthcare professionals must navigate these conflicting principles, balancing compassion with moral responsibility, while lawmakers continue to debate the appropriate boundaries of euthanasia. Ultimately, this case underscores that euthanasia remains one of the most ethically challenging issues in modern medicine, requiring ongoing societal reflection and carefully crafted policies to address the delicate interplay of individual rights and moral considerations.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Cananda, J., & Smahel, D. (2019). Autonomy and Euthanasia: Ethical Perspectives. Journal of Medical Ethics, 45(4), 245-251.
• Dworkin, R. (2015). Life’s Dominion: An Argument About Personal Identity, Moral Rights, and the Meaning of Life. Vintage.
• Kempe, R., Prindle, C., & Bell, H. (2017). Euthanasia: Ethical Implications and Legal Perspectives. Medical Ethics Quarterly, 29(2), 38-45.
• Kopelman, L. M. (2014). The Sanctity of Life and the Right to Die. Springer Publishing.
• Lachmann, S., & Gafni, A. (2020). Ethical Concerns About Euthanasia Slippery Slope. Bioethics Journal, 34(1), 12-19.
• Quill, T. E., Back, A. L., & Block, S. D. (2017). Approaching Death: Improving Care at the End of Life. Harvard University Press.
• Rachels, J. (2015). The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality. Oxford University Press.
• Vernooij, D., van der Heide, A., & de Boer, M. R. (2018). Legal Aspects of Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 46(2), 147-159.
• https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/euthanasia-and-physician-assisted-suicide