Euthanasia is wrong
Euthanasia is legally, morally and ethically unacceptable. Discuss.The word Euthanasia is derived from the Greek words eu (Well) and thanatos (Death), and according to Johnstone (1994) was used to describe the spiritual state of an individual who is close to death. The word has become corrupted over time, and now is taken to mean the deliberate ending of a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. The concept of euthanasia, as we now it today, can be traced back to circa 400 BC, where ancient medical circles regarded it a major crime, with, according to Johnstone, Plato suggesting that any physician who attempted such an action should be punished by death.In more recent times involuntary euthanasia was used in Nazi Germany between 1935 and 1945 to remove the "undesirable" elements from society, such as the disabled and elderly and mentally infirm, in a form of "economic euthanasia". This eventually paved the way to the extermination of Jews and Gypsies in Europe during the early part of the 20th century, and as a result is associated with the holocaust and is a somewhat taboo subject. Euthanasia is classified into two distinct types, that of passive euthanasia, in which it is argued, the action does not involve any inte
160While it would seem that at present euthanasia is legally unacceptable, the ethical and moral defences opposing euthanasia are subjective, and its acceptance or rejection on these grounds alone is left purely to individuals beliefs and experiences. 127However, as well as administering treatment which the medical professionals know will shorten the patients life, Stienbock (1983) argues that withholding or withdrawal of treatment should not be considered as euthanasia, but as"the avoidance of painful and pointless treatment. Without consent any treatment, especially if physical contact is required can be regarded as an assault. 28Tschudin, V (1992) Ethics in Nursing, 2nd edition, Butterworth Heinmann, LondonUKCC, (1992) Code of Professional Conduct, UKCC, London p 2 - 4. Although the case of R v Cox [1992] resulted in a guilty verdict, it is interesting to note that Cox was neither imprisoned nor struck off the medical register. 342However, the argument that non-treatment or treatment of a terminal patient in pain is more a more acceptable way of allowing an individual to die is weak. This may be due to a feeling of impending doom, and nothing to look forward to but pain and suffering, and is described by Barraclough (1994) as "Damocles Syndrome" She argues that the request for euthanasia, be it passive or active, is just a request for relief from the pain and suffering. Palliative care nurses argue that patients who have effective symptom control and had previously argued for euthanasia, are quickly glad that their wish had not been acted upon. Perhaps in the final analysis, academic legal and ethical debates may yield to economics, which seems to be the modern guiding principle, and may even pave the way to some form of legislation. This view is supported by Nowell-Smith (1989), who states that"The law identifies the intent to kill another human being as most serious. In these a patient can state during periods of good health that should they ever be in a position where extraordinary measures are required to prolong their life, and the foreseeable quality of life is poor, that they actively refuse treatment. Gillion (1988) argues that doctors should respect patients autonomy and not impose treatments which the patient has disagreed to. Bland V Airedale NHS Trust [1993] 1 All ER 821 (1993)Dines, A. ntional harm, and death results from either the non-treatment or the "good willed" attempts at symptom control.
Common topics in this essay:
Church England,
Professional Conduct,
UK Netherlands,
Gypsies Europe,
Damocles Syndrome,
Katz Sidell,
According Tschudin,
Netherlands Northern,
,
Tony Bland,
gillion 1988,
active euthanasia,
ellis 1991,
medical professions,
2nd edition,
voluntary euthanasia,
katz sidell 1994,
johnstone 1994,
nowell-smith 1989,
passive euthanasia,
sidell 1994,
edition bailliere tindall,
2nd edition bailliere,
clients ukcc 1992,
patients clients ukcc,
|
Acceptance Essays
