7moral Controversy On Euthanasiasjade Robinsonethics03212021abstract ✓ Solved

7 MORAL CONTROVERSY ON EUTHANASIA Sjade Robinson Ethics 03/21/2021 Abstract The death of a terminally ill patient is referred to as euthanasia (Nicholson, 2000). It is carried out with the consent of the individual, particularly when the person is suffering from an incurable illness. In addition, the patient's family, a court of law, or medical practitioners may make the decision to end a patient's life. It's worth noting, however, that the families, the court, or the doctors can only make a decision if the patient is seriously ill and unable to think or reason with current situation. Because all suicide procedures are designed in such a way that the patient's dignity is not degraded or compromised, euthanasia is often known as mercy killing or assisted suicide.

It was given the name euthanatos by the Greeks, which simply meant "simple death" (Shiflett & Carroll, 2002). Some people who are not terminally ill will sign consent for their lives to be ended through euthanasia for ethical reasons, particularly when it comes to issues of human dignity, but this is a rare occurrence. Euthanasia, on the other hand, has sparked unprecedented debate in society because it involves the death of a person. Euthanasia has also sparked unprecedented debate in society because it involves a number of factors, the most important of which are practical, religious, and ethical concerns. Furthermore, this practice appears to pose a challenge to health professionals, as it is not in accordance with medical ethics or the legal framework.

In some countries such as the United Kingdom, euthanasia is prohibited, as it is considered illegal. As a result, approaches to euthanasia must be approached with caution, as they may result in legal ramifications (Nicholson, 2000). In the United Kingdom, for example, voluntary euthanasia is considered a crime that is punishable by law. Anyone who commits euthanasia on purpose faces a prison sentence. As a result, the ethical aspects of euthanasia will be critically examined in this research paper.

Euthanasia appears to be causing a slew of ethical debates. This assignment evaluates these positions using the moral theories studied and highlight the views of an Ethical Egoist and that of a Social Contract Ethicist. Ethical Egoists View on Euthanasia Personal ethical egoism is the belief that I should act solely for my own benefit ("Philosophy 302: Ethics Ethical Egoism"). There is nothing that specifies the motivations for which others may act. The idea of universal ethical egoism is that everyone should do what is best for them as individuals, even if it harms others.

A patient may be in excruciating pain, have lost bodily function, and be forced to spend the rest of their life as an invalid. Egoism may cause a person to refuse treatment because of the suffering and pain they experience daily. On an individual level, one has the right to choose whether to continue receiving treatment. “Patients have the right to informed consent and the right to refuse treatment,†according to a bill created by the American Hospital Association in 1973. (Pappas 10). The bill grants an individual the right to end their life if it is in their best interests to do so.

This also aids the individual in refusing treatment, even though the family believes that keeping the individual alive is in their best interests. As a result, it informs the patient's family of their self-interest and their desire to refuse treatment if they are ever unable to communicate. Individuals may feel that it is best to die in their own self-interest and for their own personal benefit. In 1994, the Oregon Death with Dignity Act gave terminally ill patients the right to receive a physician's prescription for drugs that would allow them to end their own lives ("Euthanasia"). Not only does egoism cause people to want to end their lives, but there are numerous laws that allow them the right to die.

Physicians' egoism may also lead them to want to assist a patient in ending their life for their own self-interest. Physician-assisted suicide has the potential to save vital organs that could be used to save other people's lives. Patients who are near death experience both mental and physical anguish, as well as pain. Individuals' egoism may lead to the patient's family terminating treatment due to emotional and financial stress. They would believe it is in their best interests to decide whether or not to end the patient's life.

Dr. Walter Sackett introduced a right-to-die bill in 1967, allowing patients to write a living will and express their wishes for their lives and bodies. Social Contract Ethicist’s View on Euthanasia According to the social contract theory, individuals live together in society under the terms of an agreement that provides moral and political rules of conduct. Some people believe that if they follow a social contract, they will be able to live morally because they want to, rather than because a divine being demands it. Passive euthanasia, in their opinion, is unethical.

Medical treatment, feeding, and hydration are abruptly stopped, resulting in a slow and (potentially) torturous death. Terri Schiavo died 13 days after her tubes were removed in the last two weeks of March 2005. It is morally wrong to subject patients in PVS (Persistent Vegetative State) to such potential gratuitous suffering because it is impossible to prove that they do not suffer pain. Animals, too, should be treated with more respect. Furthermore, passive euthanasia allows us to absolve ourselves of personal responsibility for the death of the patient.

The relationship between the act (of administering a lethal medication, for example) and its effects is direct and unambiguous in active euthanasia. To be classified as euthanasia, the act or omission that leads to it must have the primary and intended goal of ending life. The agent is still morally responsible if the loss of life is unintentional (a side effect) but calling his actions and omissions euthanasia would be misleading. Accepting the unintentional but foreseen repercussions of one's actions and omissions should be distinguished from intention. Nonetheless, this nonsense obscures the real issue: If the sanctity of life is a supreme and overriding value ("basic good"), it should undoubtedly prevent and prohibit all acts and omissions that may shorten it, even if the shortening is merely a negative side effect.

This, however, is not the case. The sanctity and value of life are pitted against a slew of other moral imperatives. Even the most devout pro-life ethicist acknowledges that certain medical decisions, such as the use of strong analgesics, ultimately result in the patient's life being cut short. However, since the resulting euthanasia is not the primary goal of the pain-relieving doctor, this is considered moral. This topic of discussion involves a collision between personal obligations and national ones in that in countries where euthanasia is legal, the contract ethicist’s view does not allow euthanasia.

They put into consideration the religious aspect of viewing God as a sole provider of life hence the same God should be the one responsible for taking back the gift of life and not anybody else. It should be recommended for the individuals involved and the state to discuss and come up with a solution that will favor both sides. ANA Code for Nurses The ANA Code for nurses is a concise statement of every individual who joins the nursing profession's ethical obligations and responsibilities and a non-negotiable ethical standard for the profession. It is also a reflection of nursing's own understanding of its social responsibility. There are 9 ANA codes that include respect to human dignity, relationship to patients, nature of health of patient, right to self-determination, and relationship with colleagues and others.

In euthanasia, nurses are not part of the decision-making process, they are there to implement what has been decided by the parties involved. However, the code restricts them to a privacy of information and patient confidentiality just like for doctors. This does not in any way involve a collision between the nurses and all the other parties involved. References American Nurses Association. (2014). The Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretative Statements.

Dobson, K., & Galbraith, K. (2000). The Role of the Psychologist in Determining Competence for Assisted Suicide/euthanasia in the Terminally Ill . Canadian Psychology,41, 7-23. Nicholson, R. (2000). No Painless Death yet for European Euthanasia Debate.

The Hastings Center Report, 30, 3-16. Sam Vaknin (2009). Euthanasia and the Right to Die . Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2018). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (9th ed.).

Mcgraw-Hill Education. 7 MORAL CONTROVERSY ON EUTHANASIA Sjade Robinson Ethics 03/21/2021 Abstract The death of a terminally ill patient is referred to as euthanasia (Nicholson, 2000). It is carried out with the consent of the individual, particularly when the person is suffering from an incurable illness. In addition, the patient's family, a court of law, or medical practitioners may make the decision to end a patient's life. It's worth noting, however, that the families, the court, or the doctors can only make a decision if the patient is seriously ill and unable to think or reason with current situation.

Because all suicide procedures are designed in such a way that the patient's dignity is not degraded or compromised, euthanasia is often known as mercy killing or assisted suicide. It was given the name euthanatos by the Greeks, which simply meant "simple death" (Shiflett & Carroll, 2002). Some people who are not terminally ill will sign consent for their lives to be ended through euthanasia for ethical reasons, particularly when it comes to issues of human dignity, but this is a rare occurrence. Euthanasia, on the other hand, has sparked unprecedented debate in society because it involves the death of a person. Euthanasia has also sparked unprecedented debate in society because it involves a number of factors, the most important of which are practical, religious, and ethical concerns.

Furthermore, this practice appears to pose a challenge to health professionals, as it is not in accordance with medical ethics or the legal framework. In some countries such as the United Kingdom, euthanasia is prohibited, as it is considered illegal. As a result, approaches to euthanasia must be approached with caution, as they may result in legal ramifications (Nicholson, 2000). In the United Kingdom, for example, voluntary euthanasia is considered a crime that is punishable by law. Anyone who commits euthanasia on purpose faces a prison sentence.

As a result, the ethical aspects of euthanasia will be critically examined in this research paper. Euthanasia appears to be causing a slew of ethical debates. This assignment evaluates these positions using the moral theories studied and highlight the views of an Ethical Egoist and that of a Social Contract Ethicist. Ethical Egoists View on Euthanasia Personal ethical egoism is the belief that I should act solely for my own benefit ("Philosophy 302: Ethics Ethical Egoism"). There is nothing that specifies the motivations for which others may act.

The idea of universal ethical egoism is that everyone should do what is best for them as individuals, even if it harms others. A patient may be in excruciating pain, have lost bodily function, and be forced to spend the rest of their life as an invalid. Egoism may cause a person to refuse treatment because of the suffering and pain they experience daily. On an individual level, one has the right to choose whether to continue receiving treatment. “Patients have the right to informed consent and the right to refuse treatment,†according to a bill created by the American Hospital Association in 1973. (Pappas 10).

The bill grants an individual the right to end their life if it is in their best interests to do so. This also aids the individual in refusing treatment, even though the family believes that keeping the individual alive is in their best interests. As a result, it informs the patient's family of their self-interest and their desire to refuse treatment if they are ever unable to communicate. Individuals may feel that it is best to die in their own self-interest and for their own personal benefit. In 1994, the Oregon Death with Dignity Act gave terminally ill patients the right to receive a physician's prescription for drugs that would allow them to end their own lives ("Euthanasia").

Not only does egoism cause people to want to end their lives, but there are numerous laws that allow them the right to die. Physicians' egoism may also lead them to want to assist a patient in ending their life for their own self-interest. Physician-assisted suicide has the potential to save vital organs that could be used to save other people's lives. Patients who are near death experience both mental and physical anguish, as well as pain. Individuals' egoism may lead to the patient's family terminating treatment due to emotional and financial stress.

They would believe it is in their best interests to decide whether or not to end the patient's life. Dr. Walter Sackett introduced a right-to-die bill in 1967, allowing patients to write a living will and express their wishes for their lives and bodies. Social Contract Ethicist’s View on Euthanasia According to the social contract theory, individuals live together in society under the terms of an agreement that provides moral and political rules of conduct. Some people believe that if they follow a social contract, they will be able to live morally because they want to, rather than because a divine being demands it.

Passive euthanasia, in their opinion, is unethical. Medical treatment, feeding, and hydration are abruptly stopped, resulting in a slow and (potentially) torturous death. Terri Schiavo died 13 days after her tubes were removed in the last two weeks of March 2005. It is morally wrong to subject patients in PVS (Persistent Vegetative State) to such potential gratuitous suffering because it is impossible to prove that they do not suffer pain. Animals, too, should be treated with more respect.

Furthermore, passive euthanasia allows us to absolve ourselves of personal responsibility for the death of the patient. The relationship between the act (of administering a lethal medication, for example) and its effects is direct and unambiguous in active euthanasia. To be classified as euthanasia, the act or omission that leads to it must have the primary and intended goal of ending life. The agent is still morally responsible if the loss of life is unintentional (a side effect) but calling his actions and omissions euthanasia would be misleading. Accepting the unintentional but foreseen repercussions of one's actions and omissions should be distinguished from intention.

Nonetheless, this nonsense obscures the real issue: If the sanctity of life is a supreme and overriding value ("basic good"), it should undoubtedly prevent and prohibit all acts and omissions that may shorten it, even if the shortening is merely a negative side effect. This, however, is not the case. The sanctity and value of life are pitted against a slew of other moral imperatives. Even the most devout pro-life ethicist acknowledges that certain medical decisions, such as the use of strong analgesics, ultimately result in the patient's life being cut short. However, since the resulting euthanasia is not the primary goal of the pain-relieving doctor, this is considered moral.

This topic of discussion involves a collision between personal obligations and national ones in that in countries where euthanasia is legal, the contract ethicist’s view does not allow euthanasia. They put into consideration the religious aspect of viewing God as a sole provider of life hence the same God should be the one responsible for taking back the gift of life and not anybody else. It should be recommended for the individuals involved and the state to discuss and come up with a solution that will favor both sides. ANA Code for Nurses The ANA Code for nurses is a concise statement of every individual who joins the nursing profession's ethical obligations and responsibilities and a non-negotiable ethical standard for the profession.

It is also a reflection of nursing's own understanding of its social responsibility. There are 9 ANA codes that include respect to human dignity, relationship to patients, nature of health of patient, right to self-determination, and relationship with colleagues and others. In euthanasia, nurses are not part of the decision-making process, they are there to implement what has been decided by the parties involved. However, the code restricts them to a privacy of information and patient confidentiality just like for doctors. This does not in any way involve a collision between the nurses and all the other parties involved.

References American Nurses Association. (2014). The Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretative Statements. Dobson, K., & Galbraith, K. (2000). The Role of the Psychologist in Determining Competence for Assisted Suicide/euthanasia in the Terminally Ill . Canadian Psychology,41, 7-23.

Nicholson, R. (2000). No Painless Death yet for European Euthanasia Debate. The Hastings Center Report, 30, 3-16. Sam Vaknin (2009). Euthanasia and the Right to Die .

Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2018). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (9th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education.

Paper for above instructions

Moral Controversy on Euthanasia
Sjade Robinson
Ethics
03/21/2021

Abstract

Euthanasia, often termed as mercy killing, refers to the practice of ending the life of a terminally ill patient at their request to relieve suffering (Nicholson, 2000). It raises considerable ethical, practical, and religious concerns, resulting in heated debates across different societies. This paper evaluates euthanasia through the lenses of Ethical Egoism and Social Contract Theory while also discussing the relevant implications for health professionals, particularly in nursing, as guided by the ANA Code of Ethics.

Introduction

Euthanasia represents a complex moral issue involving the intersection of patient autonomy, the medical profession's ethical obligations, and societal norms (Shiflett & Carroll, 2002). Key considerations include the rights of individuals to make decisions about their own lives, the duty of care from medical professionals, and broader societal implications surrounding life and death. Established laws and cultural contexts play a vital role in shaping perspectives on euthanasia, and while it is legally permitted in several nations, it remains illegal and heavily contentious in others.

Ethical Perspectives on Euthanasia

Ethical Egoism

Ethical Egoism posits that individuals ought to act in their own self-interest, and this belief is instrumental in discussions surrounding euthanasia (Rachels & Rachels, 2018). Proponents of euthanasia from an egoistic standpoint argue that individuals have the right to determine the course of their treatment based on how it impacts their well-being. A patient enduring unbearable pain may seek euthanasia as a rational choice to alleviate suffering. In the United States, legislative measures like the Oregon Death with Dignity Act affirm this perspective by permitting terminally ill patients to decide to end their lives (Pappas, 1973).
Under this ethical framework, patients have the right to informed consent and the autonomy to refuse unwanted medical treatments, asserting that it is ethically permissible to choose to end their life when it serves their best interests (Euthanasia). Physicians may also be motivated by a degree of Ethical Egoism, where assisting a patient in dying can be seen as an act that alleviates burdensome suffering, which may, in turn, bring peace to the family and reduce emotional and financial strain (Nicholson, 2000).
Nevertheless, ethical egoism can lead to troubling implications, such as potential coercion where relatives may pressure a patient to choose euthanasia based on financial considerations or emotional fatigue (Sackett, 1967). Thus, while ethical egoism provides a compelling argument for autonomy in choices regarding euthanasia, it raises questions about the potential for abuse in decision-making, especially when vulnerable populations are involved.

Social Contract Theory

Contrastingly, Social Contract Theory posits that individuals within a society must adhere to mutual agreements conducive to maintaining moral order (Dobson & Galbraith, 2000). Proponents of this theory might argue that euthanasia violates the social contract by contradicting the fundamental principle that life is sacred and should be preserved. They believe that society has a collective responsibility to protect the most vulnerable, which includes those facing terminal illnesses (Schiavo, 2005).
Social contract theorists often advocate that passive euthanasia—which involves withdrawing life-sustaining treatments—can be seen as a betrayal of the social obligation to respect life until the natural end. The concern is that allowing active euthanasia could lead to a slippery slope where value is placed on individual choice over communal moral standards, potentially placing vulnerable individuals at risk of premature death (Vaknin, 2009).
In countries where euthanasia is legal, this tension between personal rights and societal responsibilities can foster contentious debates. Alongside these moral considerations, the religious aspect often contributes to the rejection of euthanasia based on the belief in divine sovereignty over life and death. This can create significant societal division on the topic, often necessitating dialogue and compromise to navigate ethical dilemmas (ANA Code, 2014).

The Role of Nurses in Euthanasia Decisions

The American Nurses Association (ANA) Code for Nurses articulates the ethical obligations of nurses, highlighting the importance of patient dignity, advocacy for patient rights, and respect for their autonomy (ANA, 2014). In euthanasia cases, nurses are typically tasked with implementing the decisions made by patients and their families, and they must navigate complex emotional landscapes while maintaining confidentiality and professional ethics.
While nurses may have personal beliefs about euthanasia, they are ethically compelled to support patient choices in accordance with the law and medical practice. Nonetheless, the ethical quandary arises when personal beliefs conflict with the responsibilities of care. Euthanasia remains a controversial and divisive issue, and nurses must strive to provide compassionate care while respecting the choices of those they serve, acting as advocates for patient rights without imposing their personal moral frameworks.

Conclusion

The moral controversy surrounding euthanasia encapsulates diverse ethical viewpoints and societal implications. Ethical Egoism champions individual autonomy, promoting the right to terminate suffering through euthanasia; however, it also presents potential risks, including coercion and exploitation of vulnerable individuals. On the other hand, Social Contract Theory emphasizes communal responsibility and the sanctity of life, asserting that euthanasia undermines societal moral standards.
The relationship between ethical considerations and the responsibilities of healthcare professionals, particularly nurses, further complicates the euthanasia debate. Ongoing dialogue, legislative deliberations, and societal engagement will be crucial in reconciling personal autonomy with moral obligations. As society progresses, the resolution of these complex ethical issues regarding euthanasia will shape future healthcare ethics and laws surrounding end-of-life care.

References

American Nurses Association. (2014). The Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretative Statements.
Dobson, K., & Galbraith, K. (2000). The Role of the Psychologist in Determining Competence for Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia in the Terminally Ill. Canadian Psychology, 41(1), 7-23.
Nicholson, R. (2000). No Painless Death Yet for European Euthanasia Debate. The Hastings Center Report, 30(3), 3-16.
Pappas, G. (1973). Patients have the right to informed consent and the right to refuse treatment. American Hospital Association.
Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2018). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (9th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education.
Sackett, W. (1967). Right-to-die bill.
Sam Vaknin. (2009). Euthanasia and the Right to Die.
Shiflett, H. & Carroll, J. (2002). Ethical Considerations in Euthanasia.
Schiavo, T. (2005). The Impact of Passive Euthanasia: A Case Study.