Medical professionals dedicate their lives to save lives and it should be their delight when this is attained. However there arise situations where they are supposed to terminate the same lives they should be delightful saving. For instance what should do when approached by a terminally ill person who has given up hope in life and wants to have his or her life terminated? At what stage should it be considered fair to have a patients life terminated?For how long should there be prolonged life support even when it is clear that death will be occur. Every time the issue of prolonged life support is raised other ethical issues emerge. Termination of the use of prolonged life support leads to death in a natural way as such patients depend on the life support machinery and this is referred to as euthanasia.
The position of this paper will be to discuss the ethical issues surrounding the prolonged life support and it will also discuss its pros and cons.Euthanasia must not only occur when a doctor switches off or rather unplugs the life support as it also takes place when the medical doctors fail to use the machinery when they know too well that by doing so they would be prolonging the lives of the patients in question. When a medical doctor or professional ceases the life of a patient probably without their consent that is said to be euthanasia but this should not to be confused with physically assisted suicide where patients seek the doctors assistance to terminate their lives through the use of lethal substances.The similarity of these two is that they spark same concerns or hot debates in the world today.
There are two types of euthanasia that is the voluntary euthanasia and the involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is where a patient requests for it even before the issue is raised by another party probably on the realization that death will be a sure result, due to immense pain or even due to the fear of leavening large economic burdens to their families.Involuntary euthanasia on the other hand is when the patient’s consent is not sought probably because it would not be possible due to their health conditions or just because the doctor failed to seek it. James Park explains clearly how in the 21st century man has advanced technologically and how he can be more than willing to use drugs or machinery to make his life more comfortable and if possible longer. A question that begs for an answer here is whether it would be justified to make autonomous decisions regarding ‘how long’ one uses the life support equipment given the fact that they initiated it themselves.
It is clear that the tremendous efforts brought forth by technology seeking to improve the conditions and the live of patients with terminal illnesses may not always be a success and it is apparent that they have to go through a lot of suffering. (Park J, 2008). When there is no known medication that can ease such pain it becomes difficult to establish the viable cause of action. Some complications like the feeling of breathlessness and suffocation can not be alleviated through drugs and always leaves a patient with a feeling of helplessness. (Keown J, 1995).
Concerns that arise are not only on its appropriateness or inappropriateness as there are also controversies regarding their definition as well as their conceptualization. To some, terminating a person’s life who has been suffering from a terminal illness to ease their pain may be seen as a way or form of assisting them. On the other hand, some may view it as murder with the supporting argument that only the author of life has the right to terminate it. Euthanasia occurs when the use of prolonged life support comes to a halt before the patient is actually dead.In this regard euthanasia can be defined as ‘the intentional killing of a patient by an act or omission which is part of his medical care’. An issue arising from euthanasia is what a medical doctor should do when approached by a terminally ill person who is in deep pain and suffering seeking for voluntary euthanasia.
Should the state involvement be considered under such instances or should it keep off? Again suicide is a legal act and the terminally ill may be incapacitated to commit it due to their physical as well as emotional conditions.Questions that arise here are whether they should be discriminated due to their incapacitation. Proponents of euthanasia would argue that the role of the government should be minimal in as far as euthanasia is concerned as death is a personal issue. (Waal et al, 1996). There is a serious or unending war of words between those who support the continued use of prolonged life support till death and those who advocate for the cessation of its use when there seems to be minimal chances or hope for survival.Stopping the use of prolonged life support is to some people immoral as it negates or rather violates the sanctity of life.
It is backed by most religious organizations that believe in life being sacred and should consequently be respected as such. No life is more important than the other regardless the individual’s heath status. For the Christians, euthanasia is murder and sinful as it destroys a very special gift from God: the gift of life instead of respecting it. The Holy Book condemns the cessation of life and thus their strong stand point against it.To most Christians God only sends us what He knows too well that we can handle and if one has a terminal illness God is aware that the person can manage or cope with it and they should consequently bear their burdens with delight. (Robinson, 2001).
Opponents of euthanasia have been advocating for the prohibition of euthanasia since it’s a violation of the ancient but famous ‘Hippocratic Oath’. The oath was to guide the medical professionals in their work and it advocates for maximum care and devotion by the medical professionals to save and preserve lives.This has not stood the test of time give the fact that some medical personnel’s destroy or rather terminate the same lives they are supposed to save and preserve. Prolonged life support should continue until the patients in question are no more. Advocating otherwise works to create loopholes where it would be difficult to regulate how the process is carried out.
Without proper regulation there can be misuse aimed at satisfying personal needs or goals.The determination of when to stop the use of prolonged life support by doctors is also questionable. Some argue that for effective determination of when the prolonged life support the patient’s consent should be sought. To realize this, the patients in question must be competent and more often than not patients in need of such support will be too weak to offer competent decisions. Doctors may not be in the best position to evaluate a patient’s level of competence and the termination of prolonged life support may be without their ‘consent’.Those who advocate for the determination of when to stop the prolonged life support may argue that patients have a right to decide what is best for them and that the state and other institutions should not interfere.
The notion here is that each person has their individual rights and freedoms which should be respected. (James R, 1986). When patients are very sick, death becomes eminent and since it is natural for human beings to fear death, they undergo immense suffering that can be eliminated when euthanasia takes place.Those advocating for the determination of when to stop using the prolonged life support also argue that since the world is adopting modern liberties this should not be selective.
It should be incorporated in human rights as well where by people can choose to have their lives terminated as a way of expressing their freedom rights. Determining when or how long prolonged support should be carried out can be supported due to its economic benefits. Terminating the prolonged life will of course lead to death of patients and it would no longer be necessary to incur costs to finance the palliative care.Maintaining sick people with the obvious knowledge that death will be a sure result is in this context considered an expensive venture.
Some may argue that it would be more profitable to spend more resources on those with a greater chance for survival as they can be of more value to the society should they regain or recover. Another issue that can be raised as a pro factor to the determination of when to terminate life is the fact that it saves the patient’s family members finances as well as time. They are saved from psychological stress or pressure when catering for them.Such finances can be channeled or diverted to other productive uses.
Cessation of life may be of a positive effect to both the family members as well as government or state in as far as economic costs are concerned. Felicia in ‘For Now Have I My Death: The “Duty to Die” versus the Duty to Help the Ill Stay Alive’ noted sustaining a patient with a terminal illness is emotional draining in addition to being economically costly. It can drain a family’s savings with no time. This can have disastrous effects on them especially given the fact that the patient will still succumb to his or her condition. Felicia A, 2000).
Advocates of euthanasia argue that the question of abuse of human dignity should not arise as to them a person in life support has lost their dignity already. They argue that since terminal illnesses will only result to death then it is an honorable act to die before the illness has taken the better part of them. Life in this context is seen to have meaning depending on its quality. There seems to be more to life than being alive. Health affects the quality of this life reducing its worth.
Life to these people is a hierarchy where people graduate from one stage to the next and when one stage is not adequate due to the reduced quality then it is important to move to the next stage. They further argue that there is a distinction between ‘good life’ and ‘bad life’ based on their quality. Bad life is simply not worth living and it is compromised by bad health like terminal illnesses. (Uhlmann 1998) Opponents of euthanasia especially those in the medical field can argue to their defense that their role in addition to saving and preserving lives should be to minimize the patients suffering.They further argue that death is at times the only option of reducing their patient’s pain compelling them to euthanasia.
(Kuhse H, 1988). To them, life does not make sense when it’s being prolonged and it only works to prolong the patient’s pain and at a cost. This does not auger well with the opponents who cite moral grounds against the said role. They are quick to point out that although this may be their responsibility death should not be the solution. They argue that there must be other feasible ways of attaining or rather realizing this goal.Opponents of euthanasia would argue against its favor by citing the issue of the loss or reduction of human life value or worth.
Proponents would respond to this by arguing that if it were made legal there would be effective laws to ensure that it is only applied in needy situation. In any case the terminally ill are suffering and worse still they are beyond medical salvage and citing the issue of loss of human value and dignity should not arise. (Low C, 1989).
