Euthanasia and ethics - Grade: 100 PDF

Preview

Summary

Movie Critique assignment based on the movie "You Don't Know Jack" discussing early adopter of euthanasia and ethical issues surrounding euthanasia. ...

Description

Kayla Harris HSP 4335 Professor Brown September 17, 2020 Ethics and Euthanasia In the turn of healthcare, physicians started a service of euthanasia as a means to end ones suffering from chronic illnesses and diseases. Upholders for physician assisted death support this service because death is part of medicine and advocates to each patient guarantees their own death. However, those in opposition despise such ideology claiming God has the only power to decide who lives and dies. The importance of this dilemma questions the ethical stance of giving patient death or letting them suffer from chronic illnesses and diseases. Does the patient have the right to end their own life or does natural order surpass patient’s wishes? In the movie, You Don’t Know Jack, a plethora of ethical theories and principles are illustrated; specifically, natural law and autonomy are the most prominent when assessing the issue of euthanasia (Ferguson, Dean, Jones & Levinson, 2010). When debating euthanasia in healthcare, natural law is the most relevant theory. Although natural law theory is not the same as authority-based theory, religion is still a factor. Natural law is heavily important in terms of religion since it heavily influences the Roman Catholic church (Furlong & Morrison, 2019, p. 12). The first principle of natural law is the double effect, which lays standards for what is good and what is evil. The double effect states consequences are independent of an act of good, therefore the intention of an action must be good (Furlong & Morrison, 2019, p. 14). The second principle of natural law is the entitlement to maximize one’s potential. This principle is drawn from Aristotle’s eudaimonia stating humans activate their potential to actualization (Furlong & Morrison, 2019, p. 15). This ties to natural law because

nature has order and rationality, so it is inherent for those to seek actualization. Euthanasia is reaching actuality because practical reason states entrusted goods need to be returned to their owner (Furlong & Morrison, 2019, p. 13). Based on human rights ideology, prohibiting euthanasia is hindering one’s potential, which violates natural law (Furlong & Morrison, 2019, p. 15). Autonomy is the most prominent ethical principle when it comes to euthanasia in healthcare. Health care professionals are advocates for their patients, even in disagreement of the course of action, the patient’s wishes are priority. However, for a patient to utilize autonomy, they must be competent and free of coercion (Furlong & Morrison, 2019, p. 44). Physicians must respect a patient’s autonomy or freedom of choice (Furlong & Morrison, 2019, p. 45). Thus, if one’s wish is for physician assisted suicide, the wish is to be respected. To further discuss competency, a patient with mental health problems wishing for euthanasia would not be an example of a competent patient. If a healthcare provider denies or does not include the patient in the decision-making process, they violate the patient’s autonomy. Taking natural law and autonomy into consideration in support for euthanasia enables physicians to make an ethical decision. Although natural law and autonomy can support euthanasia, both can be utilized in standing against euthanasia. Natural law theory states nature is rational and orderly, meaning nature will run its course. Thus, physician assisted suicide can be viewed as disturbing the natural order of death. With a religious perspective, physicians who proceed with euthanasia are playing God, in determining who lives and dies. Based on natural law theory, God has authority over humans and those are guided by divine providence (Furlong & Morrison, 2019, p.13). Another point to illustrate is euthanasia is death; therefore, physicians are plainly killing patients.

This is viewed as an evil, violating natural laws double effect of good outweighing the bad (Furlong & Morrison, 2019, p. 14). In religion, murder is one of the highest sins, thus opposing parties, as subjected to higher providences, do not find euthanasia ethical. Although autonomy advocates for patient’s freedom, critics can question the competence and coercion of patients seeking physician assisted death. Rationally, can a patient be competent enough with chronic illnesses to decide euthanasia is the correct course of action? A patient who serves God goes against his authority and decides death over living for Him. According to Furlong and Morrison (2019), a patient with a chronic illness can be intermittingly competent (p. 45). If a patient is intermittingly competent, it comes to question at which point was the decision made and if, in that time, the patient met the criteria of practicing competency. The patient may have decided on euthanasia until they change their minds in an incompetent state. Then the physician must stick to the decided course of action of when the patient was deemed competent; although conflicting the new verdict of choosing life over death. Another factor to consider is coercion. Patients can be influenced by coercion in order to please someone; meaning the patient chooses an action to content someone else (Furlong & Morrison, 2019, p. 45). A patient can be choosing physician assisted death if coerced by family members if they feel like a burden socially or financially. Physicians can also coerce patients if they strongly insist euthanasia is the only course of treatment. Thus, the patient is not acting out of autonomy, competence, or freedom of coercion making euthanasia unethical. Although advocates and critics make solid points to this ethical dilemma, euthanasia is an ethical course of action. Euthanasia is a means to end suffering one bestows upon themselves through autonomy (Banović & Turanjanin, 2014, p. 2). In todays healthcare, patients and physicians build rapport to make decisions regarding patients’ health; thus, physicians must

respect a patient’s autonomy, free of coercion, while also practicing good medicine and determining if decisions are made competently. To further defend, according to natural law, an actions intent must be good, aligning with ending a patient suffering. Some countries allow euthanasia only if the patient meets requirements such as; the patients requests procedure, the patient’s pain is insufferable and terminal, and the patient is aware (Banović & Turanjanin, 2014, p. 5). Again, relayed earlier, a patient who has a mental health illness is not competent to make such decision because treatments are available for easing the patients’ pain. In a study conducted by Cohen, et al. (1994), physicians who deemed euthanasia as unethical were guided by religious beliefs (p. 91). A patient who is consulted by a physician, guided by religious beliefs, and is coerced to living with pain violates the patient’s autonomy. In addition, a healthcare professional should not push their beliefs onto the patients. The film, You Don’t Know Jack, portrays both arguments of physician assisted death (Ferguson, Dean, Jones & Levinson, 2010). Those supporting euthanasia were the families of the patients, some community members, and a few healthcare professionals. However, the movie portrayed more of those in opposition; community members relying on religious beliefs, healthcare professionals violating patient autonomy, and legal representatives stating euthanasia is murder. According to Furlong & Morrison (2019), religions and activist groups can hinder natural law and violate one’s potential (p. 15). Opposers to euthanasia created a plethora of problems for advocates. You don’t know Jack provides extended knowledge of euthanasia and conveyed the challenges advocates had to overcome with a majority opposing them (Ferguson, Dean, Jones & Levinson, 2010). The ethical principles were highlighted tremendously throughout the film and overall, the film remained unbiased by showing both sides of the ethical dilemma.

Based on the film, euthanasia should be ethically sound. Especially when patients practiced autonomy and made decisions prior to being incompetent. According to Wilson, et al. (2000), a study highlighted patients with chronic illnesses and diseases, who listed uncontrollable pain and poor quality of life as factors to relying on euthanasia as a last alternative (p. 2457). The subjects met requirements to ensure they were competent before being tested. Based on natural law theory, the physician has good intentions to perform physician assisted suicide. Instead of the patient suffering for a specified number of years, physicians are ending their pain. A religious viewpoint that can be made is a person is moving toward perfection, thus living with conditions that create suffering is not perfection. Therefore, ending one’s life reunites the patient with their creator (Furlong & Morrison, 2019, p. 13). To further develop this idea, humans’ sin while living and natural law states to avoid evil, again reiterating that euthanasia is actualizing one’s potential, evading evil and restoring goods to their owner (Furlong & Morrison, 2019, p. 13). Personal values and experiences play a vital role in my support for euthanasia. If a condition developed where I could not remember my name, feed nor bathe myself, I would opt for physician assisted suicide. This also applies if I am coma ridden, living off ventilators and feeding tubes, because I would be wasting resources. Most especially because my organs are still viable and can save other people who need them more desperately. From experience, I watched my grandmother and grandfather with end stage cancers suffer before finally passing away. Thus, euthanasia hits home harder because watching someone in agonizing pain is something I will never forget nor wish upon anyone. In conclusion, euthanasia is ethically sound based on natural law theory and autonomy. Physicians are providing a greater good than bad with physician assisted suicide procedures as long as the patient’s autonomy is respected. The patient must be competent and free of coercion

in order to be ethically acceptable. Although religion is an inevitable factor that will always be present in ethical issues, healthcare providers must do good for their patient and their best interest regardless of difference of opinions.

References

Banović, B., & Turanjanin, V. (2014). Euthanasia: Murder or Not: A Comparative Approach. Iranian journal of public health, 43(10), 1316–1323.

Cohen, J., et al. (1994). Attitudes toward Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia among Physicians in Washington State. New England Journal of Medicine, 331(2), 89-94. doi:10.1056/nejm199407143310206

Ferguson, S., Dean, L., Jones, S. (Producers), Levinson, B. (Director). (2010). You Don’t Know Jack [Motion Picture]. United States of America: HBO Films.

Furlong, E. & Morrison, E. (2019). Health care ethics: Critical issues for the 21st century. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Wilson, K., et al. (2000). Attitudes of Terminally Ill Patients Toward Euthanasia and PhysicianAssisted Suicide. Archives of Internal Medicine, 160(16), 2454-2460. doi:10.1001/archinte.160.16.2454...