Biomedical ethics: principles and applications

Biomedical Ethics: Euthanasia

Mercy killing continues to elicit debates on the moral and ethical aspects involved in conducting the act. Mercy killing, which is also called euthanasia, is a practice that medical professionals consider to assist the terminally ill patients (Huxtable 21). Terminal illnesses do not have a cure, or such conditions that have terminal consequence are irreversible. For instance, the case of Paul Mills, who was terminally ill due to cancer of the esophagus, is an illustration of euthanasia. The doctor involved, Dr. Nancy Morrison arrived at the conclusion after the patient agreed to have the practice performed on him. Euthanasia is currently a discussion subject in the legal context as governments and medical organizations seek to establish legal regulations and definitions of the practice. However, the moral and social ethical values are the focus of many who have diverse views of the impacts of euthanasia.

Arguments against euthanasia

The case of Paul Mills ignited mixed reactions after his death led to the arrest of Morrison. The scenario began with the observation that the patient was extremely sick, and chances of recovery were minimal (Robb 12). This fuelled the thought of exercising euthanasia by the family. The family, after making their considerations, agreed to the patient undergoing euthanasia. The nurses started by removing the active life support. However, it happened that the case was not as severe as they imagined; hence, the patient reacted violently before passing out. This means that, the actual intention of the practice, which is to end life of the individual without causing more harm and suffering. The purpose of conducting euthanasia is to terminate the life of the person, by showing mercy while alleviating the suffering. However, I request to differ based on the following arguments. According to the case of Paul, it is clear that the removal of the life support machine, instead of assisting him to die without suffering, it caused more suffering to him. The use of pain relievers did not help him relax, but complicated the situation (Robb 20). Therefore, in the view of the situation, it is clear that euthanasia is morally unacceptable as it is equivalent to torture and eventual murder of the person.

Secondly, according to all societal beliefs and practices, the process of taking the life of a person, whether with or without their consent, is equivalent to the crime of murder. No person has the authority to take their life as it is not their own. For instance, a child belongs to the society and not the parent alone. Therefore, taking the life of an individual is equivalent of taking a person who belongs to the society from them. This person could be the next leader or influential person in the country if they recover from the sickness. Besides, according to most societal beliefs, there is a God who heals His people. Thus, the practice of euthanasia is equivalent of comparing the persons who make the decision to God who gives life (Diaconescu 16). Life is a precious commodity every entity should have the liberty to experience it to the last bit without undergoing suffering, and torture as it happens with euthanasia. Therefore, it is morally wrong to execute murder on a person in the name of saving them from the suffering they are undergoing. Additionally, there are other modes of alienating pain and suffering from the individual other that conducting euthanasia on the person. Such include practices such as terminal sedation for palliative care. Thus, conducting euthanasia on a person is not the last measure available to end the suffering of a person.

In relation to the case against Dr. Nancy Morrison, the case did not go through as she got indictment. However, the moral argument outside the court is evidence enough to show that, society does not agree with the process. The family sued her despite the knowledge that they gave authorization for him to undergo the process. They viewed the incidence as an act of deliberate killing, which indicates that the concerns against the process of euthanasia are genuine morally (Diaconescu 22). All these reasons lead to the conclusion that no person has the moral right to take the life of another; neither does any person have the moral right to take their own life. Thus, the case of Paul and Dr. Morrison was too lenient to grant her indictment. Euthanasia has no moral basis; thus, accepting the terms of euthanasia is equivalent of suicide and murder combined for all involved in making decisions and executing them.

Arguments for Euthanasia

Euthanasia continues to be a leading discussion subject among the medical professionals. The moral basis of practice that supports the process includes the following. First, euthanasia does not occur without the consent of the individual responsible for the patient. As is the case with Paul, the family agreed to the process and thus, morally, the aspect of the consent of a person to an action gives them the moral responsibility to execute it (Sneiderman & Raymond 13). Thus, euthanasia does have a moral basis in the consent. Secondly, morally, every person should have a life free of suffering. However, a terminally ill person undergoes lots of suffering and pain. Therefore, it is only moral to aid this terminally ill person from undergoing the suffering and pain, and ensuring quality of life for them. Thus, if terminally ill, the safest and surest way to eliminate the suffering of the person is by the process of euthanasia. Additionally, a terminally ill person causes economic costs on the family. The economic impact of the illness on the family necessitates means to ensure they have a quality life, free of financial constrains. Therefore, conducting euthanasia on the patient reduces the social impacts on the family, which leads to the moral basis of the ability to live a life free of financial strains. Thus, morally, conducting euthanasia helps the family to eliminate unrealistic expenditures while people are not contributing positively to the society (Sneiderman & Raymond 19). Therefore, euthanasia eliminates pain, suffering and debts to the family members. Euthanasia is a necessary process in the society Dr. Nancy Morrison favored Paul when she agreed to facilitate the process, despite knowing the risks involved.