_Main Topics___________________________

Counter Argument

Interview Summary_______________________

 Personal opinion_________________________

Ethical debate of euthanasia

Euthansia should not be apart of healthcare 

Every single human being leads on the same path to death as death does not discriminate no matter sex, race, and class. It is human knowledge that everyone will soon die, taking nothing with them into the unknown where only man has only speculated beyond what life is. In our modern society today, we have doctors who are there to hear our first infant cry to our last word on the death bed in a hospital. Life is a precious thing for all manners of life in turn this would bring up the subject of euthanasia, the medical practice of providing a drug in order to have the patient end their life. This in perspective would bring up the topics such as law, medical practices, philosophy, and morality. “I will not give lethal drugs to anyone if I am asked” (1) this is an insertion from the  Hippocratic oath which is the ethical guide for health care workers when treating patients in the most utter highest respect of life with dignity. It has been used for centuries, however, it now interferes with modern medicine practices and has gotten into ethical debates on how the oath still applies. Doctors do what is in the great interest of the patients, however, how much can our physicians be able to provide for us in a way that does not dehumanize the value of life? Doctors should not be given this power. 

The state of Oregan was the leading experiment for the United States to have the practice of allowing a doctor to conduct assisted suicide in a timely manner by giving the patient a drug knowing it will cause them death. This was legalized in 1994 and fully implemented in 1997. There was a supreme court case “Glucksberg v. Washington”  held in the Stating the ruling of the practice of physician assisted suicide was not protected by the due process clause as they see it as offensive to our nation’s belief system. 

 However with great detail in this subject,  this particular practice was more known in the Netherlands where they have practiced it without any significant legal conquest and were the first one’s to do so. (2) In Netherland’s law the patient must fully convince the doctor of this process and fully understand the concept and what they are in for. The patient must write on a legal document stating their wishes which again is up to the doctor to decide whether they are performing the procedure. Minors who are under the age of 18 can also request euthanasia under the consent of the parents and also patients with dementia can have this.  In more recent years however the state of California government has made a decision agreeing to have euthanasia legal. The article: “Senate Bill No. 380 SB-380 End of life.”  stating such practices are allowed to make the wish of the patient true. They need a 48 hour minimum oral request; it needs two more individual consent to do so on this matter with the need to provide identification of their relations to the patient. The patient must be terminally ill while age and disability should not be taken into account when taking into account accountability.  “Second Extraordinary Session, EOLA, permits terminally ill adult patients with capacity to make medical decisions to be prescribed an aid-in-dying medication to peacefully end their suffering, if certain conditions are met.” (3) It is important to note a patient can jump out of this decision and they should be well aware of that in their given situation and they must meet up with a psychologist and such to ensure that this is all okay with the patient. If the assisted suicide does not work however they will provide hospice in which they will stay comfortable till death. After this bill was passed California became the fifth state to start providing this type of procedure. 

To begin there are two certain types of euthanasia that are thrown into this subject and should be looked at carefully. Active euthanasia is when ethier person who does not have a medical degree or one who  gives a patient a drug to unalive the patient while passive euthanasia is when a medical professional did not give the patient the proper care that was needed. This can include an amount of examples: not giving it life extending drugs, pulling out life support, feeding tubes, etc. Philosophers have come to the more ethical conclusion of the two suggesting that active euthanasia is more morally just (4) in the line of reasoning that it is because it would be just as cruel to leave a patient to suffer towards the end of their life therefore it is morally better. The belief that this is a cleaner way to have a human life pass. This doesn’t technically mean anything for the sake of argument that our modern medicine is far more advanced now than it ever was which means that pain is controllable, a patient needs to be provided with the proper care to sustain themselves until life is given up by their bodies. 

Legalizing euthanasia would reduce the ability of palliative care. Patients need the proper palliative care or hospice care. The care that certain patients need is a lot for them physically and mentally. For hHealthcare providers this should be top priority no matter as there are still advancements in medicine that still need to be improved therefore offering this type of service would cause laziness in researchers as they would probably wonder what is the point. The whole reason why patients would desire euthanasia is for the reason that they want to feel in control of lives instead of being slipped away with suffering; if the properly provided palliative care there would be less demand for this practice. The suffering of a patient is what normal human life is as life itself is made of stressful emotional suffering that can be overbearing at times. To live a life of suffering is what brings people wisdom and new understanding. However, suffering is always temporary with the proper care. This leads back to mental health reasons for why patients would authorize this due to depression. Depression when you are close to death is not uncommon even though you hear many say that the happiest you are is towards the end of your life. Depression is associated with great suffering and is derived from suffering “The medical literature suggests that the incidence of major depression in terminally ill patients ranges from 25% to 77%.”(5) Patients should be given more psychologist opportunities in order to give them the reasoning to live because life is great when you aren’t surrounded with doctor inspecting patients as the illness; instead being seen as a person with feelings and a soul. Doctors are given a role to be the ones to give life or sustain it, just like how lawyers are to justify the actions knowing the man is guilty.  Given that these numbers are so high it is questionable on why people would want this legalized instead of trying to afford better care that is less expensive for the terminally ill. 

Healthcare alone is expensive for the average American leaving the proper care for most patients unbelievably unimaginable,  to the point where the patient provider might be working themselves to death. Assisted suicide is on the cheaper side for patients who cannot afford the proper care need for their sickness. The amount that needs to be accounted for such  treatment needed is insurance bills, check ups, medication to subside the pain, and long hours of hospital stays adds up eventually leading the provider to be overwhelmed with the money and the patients feeling like burdens to their families. This guilt and family overwhelm will lead them to give up on trying to extend life or make it easier by deciding on assisted suicide: “Medicare data indicates that uninsured families could save nearly $15,800 (2016 dollars) in end of life costs if a patient were to choose PAS”(6) When looking at this number in face value it makes a person wonder what do patients think when they hear the from their financial advisor. It was also found that when the state of Oregan legalized this practice the demand skyrocketed to 300%, a crazy number but even more crazy that the funds increased for this practice while it has decreased in the funds for cancer treatments. (7) This not only supports the idea that having this open to society would decrease the need to find cures for diseases but also suggests that the government doesn’t see the urgency to take care of the depression that these patients are facing. 

This practice devalues human lives in a way that makes it seem that living as a disabled person or sick isn’t as good as being dead. For example if we were to decide whose lives are more fit to truly live and solely believe that life is right for those who are healthy and up right, should we kill on our behalf mercy? If we want people to live in full dignity and up most respect should we not slaughter them like animals? If a starving kid came up to you and asked you to end his life? Would you help the child and give him the proper care that he needs or will you give him what he wants because it was “voluntary”   which justifies that you should end his suffering. Patients may feel invaluable or feel worthless almost as a burden to their host family in which they may feel obligated to die because of this. If we do not give the option to patients the more stable ones would not have to justify the meaning of their lives, however this brings up a concern for what will be qualified as suffering? Will they include disabilities making it seem to live life as a disabled person is to be horrible and that a person should die? This question can be provided with an example in World war ll where Nazis will take human lives based on the feeling that these citizens who were both genetically and financially a burden to your family. (8) It may sound outrageous but there is no real proof that maybe one day society will turn to be like the Nazis and conform to this and be normalized. 

Doctors can abuse euthanasia in ways that will change society's perspective on sickness and they encourage the practice based on bais recommendations  due to some prejudices they may have. There are a number of things that doctors can get wrong and still ultimately decide to push a patient to decide to get it with or without their consent. Doctors may not adequately respect patient autonomy by making decisions about euthanasia without fully involving the patient in the decision-making process or without considering their values and preferences. Still seeing the patient as a subject for the disease instead of a human being with feeling; over time, doctors might become desensitized to the ethical issues of euthanasia, leading them to recommend it more frequently or without fully considering its implications for the patient's well-being and dignity.

Life ending in dignity is a serious thing in the medical field and should be addressed properly with more research and data that comes out in the future. Euthasia should not be used in the medical field due to ethical reasoning and physiological issues that would conflict with our society. Instead we should be looking for better healthcare options to leave patients with an easy passing to death with their loved ones in their final moments. Clear legal framework should be established, medical evaluations should be 100 percent sure that a patient is near end of death, and education based on this matter. There are patients who would give into this due to the lack of education of this subject, therefore the proper death given by angels of death is not so proper. 

Sources