Cases Of Active Euthanasia example essay topic

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 vs. 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 against active euthanasia revolve around the notions that physicians cannot always know the wishes of the patient, especially when the patient is comatose or unresponsive; physicians hold an obligation to save and prolong lives, not end them; physicians cannot always accurately gauge how much time is left; and also that physicians can misdiagnose and label a patient as terminal when in fact he or she has good chances of survival (1). In a discussion of this, Wesley J. Smith, an editor for National Review, reported in 1995 that: According to a growing body of medical literature, misdiagnosis of the persistent vegetative state is a real problem. A study published in the June 1991 Archives of Neurology found that, of 84 patients with a firm diagnosis of persistent vegetative state, 58 percent recovered consciousness within three years. Moreover, researchers were unable to identify objective predictors of recovery to differentiate between those who would awaken and those who would not.

(Smith 1) The issue of misdiagnosis could be seen as reason to say that the practice of euthanasia should not be accepted, and a patients right to a death with dignity should be denied. However, interpreting the issue this way is also another way of saying that a person must continue in his or her suffering, regardless of whether the cause is to prolong his or her life. Instead, misdiagnosis should be interpreted as a factor that contributes to the need for more extensive guidelines in physician assisted suicide. Guidelines which provide for the amount of time a person should remain comatose or in pain before euthanasia is considered, especially when the duration of such afflictions is uncertain, are some that definitely need to be established. Malcolm Dean, an editor for the British publication The Lancet, commented in 1995 that Doctors have too little guidance in mercy killing matters and there has been too little attention paid to the issue in medical education and training (Dean 1). Even if this void in medical treatment is remedied, still present is the disturbing irony that some believe it is more humane to let a person die slowly of starvation and thirst rather than give the person a remedy that will bring about a faster, painless end.

Realizing this irony would lead any logically minded person to believe that the moral values regarding this issue are hypocritical and mundane. The real focus should be on making sure euthanasia is done correctly, at the right time, and is the best decision for the patient. With all the attention being placed on sanctity of life, interpretation of the physician's oath, and legality involved; policy and procedure are going to have a tough time being established with so many barricades to battle through.

Bibliography

Cherny, Nathan I. The Problem of Inadequately Relieved Suffering. (Psychological Perspectives on Euthanasia). Journal of Social Issues. Summer 1996: 52, 2, 13.
Darley, John M. Community Attitudes on the Family of Issues Surrounding the Death of Terminally Ill Patients. Summer 1996: 52, 2, 85.
la. edu. Dean, Malcolm. Politics of Euthanasia in the UK The Lancet. 18 March 1995: 345, 8951,714.
Flynn, Tom. A Case For Mercy Killing. Free Inquiry. Summer 1993: 13, 3, 60.
McCord, William. Death With Dignity. The Humanist. Jan. -Feb. 1993: 53, 1, 26.
Smith, Wesley J. Killing Grounds: By Dehumanizing Brain Damaged Patients, We Have Made It Acceptable to Starve or Dehydrate Themselves to Death. National Review. 6 March 1995: 47, n 4, 54.