Controversial end-of-life decisions: case study analysis

Controversial Cases of End-of-Life Decisions

For this discussion, we consider one the most controversial euthanasia case in the history of America - the case of Terri Schiavo who never regained consciousness after collapsing at her home on February 25, 1990. She died 15 years later at a hospital but her death and the preceding legal battle that the Americans witnessed regarding the removal of her feeding tube created a firestorm of debate around the country about the status of end-of-life decisions (Johnstone, 2011).

There were people, politicians, artists, activists and the medical fraternity who were clearly divided in their opinion about the right to death and right to euthanasia. The debate clearly indicated the deep divide in the America society related to euthanasia and end-of-life care.

The proponents of euthanasia argued that it was needed by terminally ill patients and support their claims by 'the compassion argument'. They claimed that every human being has a right to live with dignity and lead a quality life. If the quality of life was not ensured then an individual could not live with dignity (Lavi, 2007). Thus, they claim terminally ill individuals would not enjoy a quality life ever and thus would not live with dignity. On the other hand, such people should be given the right to 'die with dignity' which is kinder to them than forcing them into a life that is riddled with suffering only.

Proponents also put forward the autonomy theory that states that every individual has a right to choose a life and even death for themselves. The Kantian moral theory also supports this argument which states the minimum goods that can be guaranteed to any person is rights so that they are able to enjoy a good life. The right to autonomy allows a terminally ill patient to choose his notion of quality of life and decide whether he wants that it or not. This theoretical framework says that "dignity is essential for choosing quality; it is the minimum choice from autonomy."

However those against the legalization and allowing euthanasia claim that medical science has advanced to such a level that patients can be ultimately cured. They claim that there are alternative treatments such as palliative care and hospices and hence it is unnecessary to kill the patient in order to kill the symptoms (Woods & Bickley Asher, 2014). Medical science is able to relieve nearly all pain. The doctors would give the right to decide on the life or death of a patient if voluntary euthanasia was allowed as it would ultimately lead to non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. They also put forward the legal positivism argument where morality was detached from law and the law could only be considered when it is written by any law making authority. It also states that law can gain force only if it is enforced and hence unless the government decided to make voluntary euthanasia as a law, there was no point in talking about it (SULMASY, 2002).