Active Euthanasia With Parental Consent

Active Euthanasia With Parental Consent

Active euthanasia has been debated for at least the last twenty years and has even been accepted in some states as legal under certain parameters, yet exceptions have always been made for any individual who cannot give informed consent by reason of age or mental state. The laws as they are written specifically exclude children and people who are deemed unfit to make clear decisions, children because they are thought of as to mentally and emotionally inexperienced to make life or death decisions and any individual who is to mentally impaired to follow the protocol of the law because they cannot be said to be competent to do so. The Oregon Death with Dignity act is the first of its kind in the U.S. And is written in such a way that all ethical decisions should and must be made by the individual and not by proxy for legal and ethical reasons.

Physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia in general, is one of the most controversial issues in bioethics, as well as among the general public. The desire to end ones life because that life has become not worth living is not uncommon, and it is especially common among people who feel they have become a burden or are in so much pain or discomfort, and will never get better that this is all they have to look forward to. There are basically two types of euthanasia, active euthanasia is when someone makes an active effort to end another's life or their own, by taking drugs or giving drugs or denying some essential intervention. Passive euthanasia is when a person or group allows an individual to die by not feeding them or giving them essential medical life saving care. In many cases passive euthanasia is accepted, though it has also been debated as well. In the case study at hand one must look at the desire by medical professionals to fully explain the implications of a "no code" order to the parents of the dying child. Passive euthanasia may involve palliative only care, such as hospice care when and individual is given only comfort measure care but not life saving care. Yet, in this case the child seems to have been given more, i.e. "medical treatment was continued to the end." Suicide or physician-assisted suicide are the two most common ideas associated with active euthanasia. There are clear and concise arguments associated with both sides of the debate. Yet, both arguments exclude children as capable of the allowance of active euthanasia and the physicians in this case acted within the law to refuse this option to the parents of the child as while they were willing to allow a "no code" order they were not willing to actively participate in the hastening of the child's death.

Physician-assisted suicide is a natural response to the modern creation of a death denying society, reflective of the recent emphasis on the physician and his vast skill as a heroic model of intervention. Modern medicine is seen as having all the answers, and interventions that can save lives or extend them, yet it is also clear that with certain conditions they are as helpless as the parents in this case. While many argue that heroic measures sometimes go to far, allowing individuals to languish in pain and with really a very low level of quality of life, as the parents did in this case. The broader implications of this ethical case are those which must be considered. In a perfect world decisions regarding euthanasia could be made on a case by case basis, but this is not a perfect world and regardless of the distress of these parents relinquishing the barrier of decision making i.e. The exceptions made for impairment and age would open a Pandora's Box of legal precedence. The Death with Dignity Act and any other forthcoming active euthanasia laws will likely continue to follow the same line of reasoning, i.e. that it is the unimpaired individual who must shoulder the full responsibility of the decisions he or she is making regarding the end of his or her life. That is in fact the point of the law, that a physician's responsibility as well as the responsibility of anyone who is active in the act of euthanasia is relinquished entirely to the will of the dying individual. In the case of a child this decision cannot be made by a proxy, nor can this decision be made for an individual who is mentally impaired, by his or her guardians or care takers. Though the parents in this case have fundamentally compelling arguments regarding the suffering of their child the broader concerns of the case must be considered. Overstepping the boundaries of the law, even in states where active euthanasia is legal, which is what many would call creating precedence for involuntary euthanasia. (Gilmore, 2005, p. 27) Andrea according to her parents has not been fully informed regarding death and dying and this is just one of the issues at hand. The most compelling issue at hand is that ethically it would be unreasonable to allow a proxy, parent or otherwise the right to end a child's life at any juncture of disease or wellness. According to Kamisar and others the potential for abuse when precedence is set for allowing a proxy to make a final decision on the right to die is exponential. (Kamisar, 1998) Would this then allow siblings to advocate for active euthanasia when parents become to aged to care for a disabled adult child? Would this then allow a parent to stop or deny medical treatment for a disabled child as soon as they got the first bill for care, arguing that the cost of care would ultimately challenge the child's quality of life. The possibilities are endless and will likely continue to be debated for some time, yet the right to life laws that have thusly been enacted in both Oregon and California make it very clear that proxy decisions are not a legal aspect of these laws and should never be.