MEDICAL ETHICS 1er

It is the study of moral values and judgments as they apply to medicine. Historically, Western medical
ethics may be traced to Muslim and Christian teachings. There is a well known debate about euthanasia
that has been going on for decades and today we are going to have a small discussion about it.

2em

The world's first legal euthanasia death occurred in the Australian city of Darwin on Sunday September
22, 1996 when Bob Dent ended his life under the Northern Territory's short-lived Rights of the
Terminally III Act 1995 [1]. It is well known that euthanasia is openly practised in the Netherlands, even
though the practice there remains technically in breach of the criminal law [2]. Dent's death intensified
argument about euthanasia in Australia, transforming the debate from a textbook discussion in social
ethics into a vigorous and divisive social dispute.

There are cases where persons have lapsed into a state of contented dementia, perhaps as a result of
accident or the later stages of the 'long goodbye' of Alzheimer's disease. Such individuals may manifest
little or no capacity for any significant personal interaction, let alone development or growth. Should
someone in such a condition receive treatment for a life-threatening.

There is widespread consensus about some of the categories. Passive voluntary euthanasia, the right to
refuse treatment, is almost universally accepted. Active involuntary euthanasia, the infamous outcome
of the so-called 'euthanasia' program of Nazi Germany, is unanimously condemned, and indeed has
done much to raise alarm about permitting euthanasia in any form. The category which is most
vigorously contested is active voluntary euthanasia, the category into which Bob Dent fell. What are the
arguments for and against this?

3em Arguments for active euthanasia

(a) Autonomy

The strongest argument in favour of active voluntary euthanasia is based on respect for individual
autonomy. The argument from autonomy is based on the claim that every person has the right to shape
their own life through their choices — and that must include, certainly under the unfavourable
circumstances of pain or disability and some would argue more widely, the right to choose the time and
circumstances of their death [10], On this view it is a matter of basic human dignity to be given the right
to decide about the circumstances of our own lives — and our deaths.

(b) Beneficence and fairness

There are at least three other important, and related, subsidiary arguments which are used to support a
right to determine the circumstances of one's own death. First the golden rule 'do as you would be done
by' requires that we provide aid to those in distress and in particular provide appropriate relief from
sufferings. uffering. Secondly, a corollary of the harm principle is that the denial of a right to die is unfair
and cruel; no one should be obliged to endure unbearable suffering. The unreasonable ness of those
who would deny someone's rational choice to end their suffering. irdly, the denial of a right to die
amounts to imposing a 'duty to live' — no matter what the abject condition of that life might be. This
imposition is presumptuous and intolerable.

4em Arguments against legalising euthanasia

Those who oppose euthanasia in principle will of course oppose its legalisation; but there are some
who, while supporting euthanasia in principle, have misgivings about its institutionalisation. Thus there
are some who defend the right of people to choose the time and circumstances of their death but who
find the requirement of satisfying a medical bureaucracy that their decision is sound both onerous and
offensive. End-of-life decisions, on this view, should be a personal matter between patient and
physician. According to a survey of doctors' attitudes towards, and practice of, euthanasia in New South
Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, approximately half the respondents had been asked by a
patient to hasten their death, and approximately a third had assisted patients to end their lives [16].
These figures were almost identical with the result of an earlier survey of doctors in Victoria.

5em Arguments against the practice of euthanasia

There are auxiliary arguments include the claim that palliation delivers adequate relief from indignity
and pain, uncertainty arguments about the possibility of miraculous cures, the suggestion that people in
the grip of a temporary physiological or psychological crisis may make an unwise and irrevocable choice
to end their lives, the claim that all human life is sacred, and finally, an attempt to delineate which acts
of killing are justified through the doctrine of 'double effect'.

Thin end of the wedge

The most commonly articulated worry is that if euthanasia is admitted for deserving cases, such as
Dent's, then this will lead to the admission of less deserving or quite inappropriate cases. In time the
principle will be progressively extended while the safeguards become diluted and weakened. Soon a
policy motivated by compassion will become a vehicle for abuse and monstrous i

Culture of medicine

An argument used by opponents of euthanasia is that it changes the culture of medicine. Instead of
sustaining and nurturing life, medical practice would come to include the deliberate killing of patients.
Doctors it is said should be healers, not killers.

Social limits of autonomy

One of the strongest objections to euthanasia is that the autonomy which it is our duty to respect is not
enjoyed by everyone. Even if it is granted that respect for individual autonomy is of paramount
importance, it nonetheless applies only to socially empowered individuals or groups within society.
There may be serious problems with the application of this principle to marginalised groups and
especially to individuals who are, or can be, exploited. Legalising euthanasia, according to some, ignores
the social reality of margin alised groups, and persons who might be exploited by unscrupulous relatives,
or unscrupulous doctors.

Ignorance and uncertainty objections

Another objection to allowing euthanasia is that this irrevocable step should be avoided because a
miraculous cure or spontaneous remission might reverse medical misfortune. Clearly this cannot happen
for people who have chosen to end their lives .

From a religious perspective,

euthanasia is viewed to as unethical practice because it seems to compromise religious doctrines

especially those which are concerned with life and death. Christians hold that birth and death
constitutes the fundamental life processes that were created by God, and they are ought to be
respected because they are sacred. They further claim that life is a sacred gift from God which has to be
treated with dignity (Shiflett & Carroll, 2002). Muslims claim that life is a sacred gift from Allah and;
therefore, human beings do not have any right to decide over birth and death. As such, assisted suicide
appears to fall out of the Islamic doctrines. Moreover, Hindus view euthanasia as social vice that may
compromise the Karma of patients and medics. In general, the world’s popular religions are against
euthanasia because it contravenes the fundamental religious doctrines.

6em Conclusion

In a brief conclusion, euthanasia seems to have raised ethical concerns in the society. Some of the key
issues include ethical, practical and religious issues. However, euthanasia encompasses immense
ambiguity because there is a total absence of homogeneity in the societal perception. Therefore,
different groups of individuals in the society view at the issue from diverse perspectives: thus, leading to
the emergence of two opposing sides: the proponents and the opponents.