Euthanasia is the fact of ending somebody’s life when assisting him to die peacefully without pain. In most cases, it is a process that leads to end the suffering of human beings due to disease or illness. A person other than the patient is responsible for the act of euthanasia; for example a medical provider who gives the patient the shot that must kill him. When people sign a consent form to have euthanasia, it is considered voluntary, involuntary euthanasia is when they refuse. When people are not alert and oriented they are not allowed to sign any consent including the consent to euthanasia. When euthanasia is practiced in such situation, it is a non-voluntary euthanasia. In sum, people who practice voluntary euthanasia in honoring other …show more content…
The American Nurses Association (ANA) thinks that nurses should stay away from doing euthanasia, or assisting in doing euthanasia because it is against the Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements (ANA, 2001; herein referred to as The Code). Overall, nurses are also advised to deliver a quality of care what include respect compassion and dignity to all their patients. For people in end-of-life, nursing care should also focus on the patient’s comfort, when possible the dying patient should be pain free. Nurses have also the obligation to support the patient but also the patient’s family members during these difficult moments. We must work to make sure that patients and family members are well informed about every option that is …show more content…
Retrieved from http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/EthicsStandards/Ethics-Position-Statements/Euthanasia-Assisted-Suicide-and-Aid-in-Dying.pdf
New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). 1994. Physicians Attitudes Toward Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. Vol. 331 No. 2.
Pereira, J. 2011. Legalizing Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide: The Illusion of Safeguards and
Controls. Current Oncology. 18 (2) e38-345. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC30707101
American Nurses Association. (2013). Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide, and Aid in Dying.
Retrieved from http://www.nursingworld.org/search.aspx?SearchPhrase=assisted%20suicide
American Nurses Association. (2015, January 2015). Code of Ethics for Nurses With Interpretive Statements, 1-76. Retrieved from http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/EthicsStandards/CodeofEthicsforNurses/Code-of-Ethics-For-Nurses.html Winograd, R. (2012). The balance between providing support, prolonging suffering, and promoting death: ethical issues surrounding psychological treatment of a terminally ill client. Ethics and Behavior 22(1), 44-59. Retreived from doi:
Euthanasia and assisted suicide is known as a process in which an individual (sick or disabled) engages in an act that leads to his or her own death with the help of physicians or family members to end pain and suffering. There are several other terms used for this process, such as active euthanasia or passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia refers to what is being done to actively end life while passive euthanasia is referred as eliminating a treatment that will prolong a patient’s life, which will eventually lead to death (Levy et al., 2103, p. 402). Euthanasia and assisted suicide pose a significant ethical issue today, and understanding the issue requires examining the different principles, such as the ethical issue, professional code of conduct, strength and limitations, autonomy and informed consent, beneficence and nonmaleficence, distribution, and confidentiality and truthfulness.
In the context of euthanasia, helping someone end their suffering may be viewed as doing more good than harm. This is said to be in line with the moral view that no patient be allowed to suffer unbearably, out of compassion and mercy (Norval and Gwyther, 2003). However, it can be argued that a further step in beneficence is the “duty to prevent harm to others” (Pellegrino and Thomasma, 1987), which falls under the principle of non-maleficence. Thus appropriate and optimal palliative care should be the right approach instead of euthanasia. Euthanasia advocates also set forth an argument based on distributive justice to support active voluntary euthanasia. The “rule of rescue” questions whether it is ethical to engage in expensive treatment of terminally ill patients to prolong their lives for a short period when medical funding is limited and gradually decreasing (Gabriel, 2011). This preferential treatment compromises the objectives of the medical profession and is morally unacceptable. The terminally ill patients who are already vulnerable should not be left to feel that they are a burden. They should be treated equally and should not be seen as depriving someone else of a prior right to those resources. Finally, as Beauchamp and Childress note, “the most vital consideration which binds all the four principles together is the character of the doctor who has to treat and care for his patients”
The boundaries of right to die with dignity are hard to determine. Keeping the terminal patient comfortable is the purpose of comfort care, however there could be a very thin line between what we consider terminal sedation and euthanasia. In theory, comfort care is quite different from euthanasia. Keeping the patient comfortable and letting the nature take its course is at the core of comfort measures (Gamliel, 2012). Yet, the line between keeping comfortable and facilitating death is often blurry. Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering (Gamliel, 2012). The purpose of this paper is to highlight the ethical issue of keeping comfortable vs. hastening death, and the ethical principles involved. Facilitating or hastening death is considered unethical or even illegal.
Euthanasia is the act of ending a person’s life through lethal injection or through the removement of treatment. Euthanasia comes from the Greek word meaning “good death.” When a death ends peacefully, it is recognized as a good death. In modern society, euthanasia has come to mean a death free of any pain and anxiety brought on through the use of medication; this can also be called mercy killing, deliberately ending someone’s life in order to end an individual’s suffering. Anything that would ease human suffering is good. Euthanasia eases human suffering. Therefore, euthanasia is good. Because active euthanasia is considered as suicide or murder, it is a very controversial issue and therefore, illegal in most places. Although there are always
The Code of Ethics for Nurses was created to be a guide for nurses to perform their duties in a way that is abiding with the ethical responsibilities of the nursing profession and quality in nursing care. The Code of Ethics has excellent guidelines for how nurses should behave, however; these parameters are not specific. They do not identify what is right and wrong, leaving nurses having to ultimately make that decision. Ethics in nursing involves individual interpretation based on personal morals and values. Nursing professionals have the ethical accountability to be altruistic, meaning a nurse who cares for patients without self-interest. This results in a nurse functioning as a patient advocate, making decisions that are in the best interest of the patient and practicing sound nursing ethics.
Fowler, M. D., & American Nurses Association (2008). Guide to the code of ethics for nurses: Interpretation and application. Silver Spring, MD: American Nurses Association.
Most nurses are drawn into the debate when they are treating terminally ill patients. They believe that even though it is the doctor that prescribes the lethal substances or withdrawals them from their treatment it is them, the nurses that stay with the patients until the end. Some nurses choose to help with assisting a terminally ill patient if requested knowing the legal and professional repercussions and some choose not to. There are developed guidelines stating that nurses have the right to refuse to assist a patient who has requested death assistance if it goes against their moral principles, but with that their oppositions must be stated ahead of time. Nurses on both ends are required to understand their rights and their patients’ rights (Ersek
perspective on euthanasia. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(5), 306. Retrieved March 15, 2011, from Research Library.
In the discussion of physician assisted suicide, one controversial issue has been whether or not it should become legal across the United States. On one hand, some oppose that it is not right for individuals to take their own life, with a physician 's help. On the other hand, if you are terminally ill and in a lot of pain, you should have the right to end your life with the help of a physician or someone else 's help. My view of the topic is that I am for allowing those people who are terminally ill to end their life to quit their suffering. However, people someone should check to see if the law is safe. If the law is not safe, then they should take the time to make it safe. Maybe there needs to be some arrangements that need to be fixed or adjusted.
The right of someone to take their own life has been a topic of debate since the time of Romans. In this paper euthanasia will be discussed including the history, current legislation, reasons for, reasons against, and the authors opinion on the topic. With an aging population, increasing lifespan, and an increasing rate of cancers euthanasia will become a larger topic of discussion in the years to come.
Your right as a competent ill patient who is trying to avoid excruciating pain so you can embrace a timely and dignified death, will continue to be denied. It bears the sanction for some time now and is unspoken in the concept of ordered liberty. Why let the government or any human being continue to choose when you can or cannot end your own life? Another year has passed. The legalization of euthanasia is slowly trying to spreading through the United States. Legalizing euthanasia will free a patient from pain, a low quality life, an incurable disease, and financial debt along with depression.
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
Some feel that a terminally ill patient should have a legal right to control the manner in which they die. Physicians and nurses have fought for the right to aid a patient in their death. Many families of the terminally ill have exhausted all of their funds caring for a dying patient and would prefer the option of assisted suicide to bankruptcy. While there are many strong opposing viewpoints, one of the strongest is that the terminally ill patient has the right to die in a humane, dignified manner. However, dignity in dying is not necessarily assured when a trusted doctor, whose professional ethics are to promote and maintain life, injects a terminally ill patient with a lethal dose of morphine.
Sanders, K., & Chaloner, C. (2007). Voluntary euthanasia: ethical concepts and definitions . Nursing Standard, 21, 41-44.
The applied ethical issue of euthanasia, or mercy killing, concerns whether it is morally permissible for a third party, such as a physician, to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is in intense pain. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words eu (‘well’) and thanatos (‘death’). It means a painless and gentle death. But in modern usage, it has come to imply that someone’s life is ended for compassionate reasons by some passive or active steps taken by another person. The euthanasia controversy is part of a larger issue concerning the right to die. Staunch defenders of personal liberty argue that all of us are morally entitled to end our lives when we see fit. Thus, according to these people, euthanasia is in principle morally permissible. Two additional concepts are relevant to the discussion of euthanasia. First, voluntary euthanasia refers to mercy killing that takes place with the explicit and voluntary consent of the patient, either verbally or in a written document such as a living will. Second, non-voluntary euthanasia refers to the mercy killing of a patient who is unconscious, comatose, or otherwise unable to explicitly make his intentions known. (Downing 1969) In these cases it is often family members who make the request. It is important not to confuse non-voluntary mercy killing with involuntary mercy killing. The latter would be done against the wishes of the patient and would clearly count as murder.