Euthanasia Essay Research Paper EuthanasiaEuthanasia also known

Euthanasia Essay, Research Paper

Euthanasia

Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing, is enveloped as deeply in

medical and ethical controversy as abortion. Both issues involve the termination

of a life, and both conjure strong arguments for advocacy and opposition.

Pro-euthanasia arguments emphasize the right of patients to choose their own

death, the duty of the physician to end pain and suffering, and the ability of

legalization to establish guidelines which create lucidity on when and how

euthanasia should be performed. Anti-euthanasia arguments, on the other hand,

emphasize the sanctity of life, the commitment of physicians to save lives, and the

possible dangers of mistakes. These are all important considerations. However,

in determining the ethics of euthanasia: religious values, opinions of the morality

involved, and interpretations of physician commitments should take a second seat

to the consideration of whether pain and suffering is uncontrollable, whether a

patient has a chance of recovering, and the development of extensive guidelines

by which physicians can make better decisions regarding euthanasia.

The definition of euthanasia can be subdivided into two parts: active and

passive. Passive euthanasia, the version deemed more acceptable by most

anti-euthanasia advocates, means simply refraining from rendering medical

treatment to keep the patient alive. This could mean withholding of medication

or life-sustaining therapy, refusing surgery, or negating to resuscitate and letting

the patient die of his or her own affliction (Darley 1). The definition of medical

treatment has been recently expanded by the American Medical Association to

encompass intravenous feeding and hydrating tubes. These medical devices used

to be considered a part of human care, which cannot be withheld from a patient.

Now that they are considered medical treatment, they can (Smith 1).

As a result of this, a patient may now die from starvation or dehydration

because of lack of intravenous nutrition and water supply. This has raised issues

in euthanasia debates over the humanity of such practices. Tom Flynn, an editor

for Free Inquiry, wrote an account of his partner s grandmother which describes

how, after terminating medical treatment on his grandmother, Flynn and his

partner had to watch her slowly die over a period of two weeks. In a descriptive

account of the inhumanity of the situation, Flynn wrote how Occasionally a

nurse or a family member would squeeze a few drops of water into her parched

and crackling mouth, but aside from a continuing dose of painkillers, that was all

she received (Flynn 1).

Common sense regarding the treatment of this situation did not come into

play here. If the decision is made to terminate treatment with the intention of

letting the person die a dignified death, and to end prolonged pain and suffering,

then it seems only logical to make sure that the patient does in fact reach a fast

and painless end after the fact. However, passive euthanasia, by definition, does

not provide for intervention after medical treatment has been terminated. Oddly

enough, this method of assisted suicide is considered by many religious

conservatives and anti-euthanasia advocates to be the humane method of

physician assisted suicide (1).

The inhumane method has been designated as active euthanasia. By

definition, active euthanasia can be described as taking some action designed to

directly bring about the end of a patient s life (Cherny 1). Throughout history,

cases of active euthanasia have caused much controversy. Michigan, in

particular, has been the setting for a number of incidences where people have

come to legal complications in situations where they helped another end his or

her life. In 1920 the Michigan State Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction

of a man who placed poison within the reach of his dying spouse who was

suffering from multiple sclerosis. This case, known as the People v. Campbell,

went unrecognized as a precedent sixty-three years later by a Michigan appellate

court which dismissed a murder charge against a man who gave a gun to a person

who was talking of committing suicide, and subsequently killed himself

(McCord 1).

Michigan was also the setting for the notorious Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who

orchestrated the infamous suicide of Janet Adkins in 1990. Adkins was suffering

from Alzheimer s disease, and in anticipation of years of degeneration from the

disease, requested the help of the doctor. Kevorkian reported himself to the

police immediately after she died. The murder charges brought on Kevorkian as a

result of his actions were dropped two years later, again ignoring the precedent of

Campbell s case. This lack of both continuity between cases, and established

policy with which to act upon, is symbolic of the same lack within the medical

field regarding active euthanasia.

Arguments again

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать