1

An Ethical Dilemma Relating to Global Diversity

 2

Euthanasia

When a family member is dying in a hospital bed, will you instead choose to end his life

or wait until the suffering naturally ends? If you were a doctor, would you use your power and

authority to finish the patient's misery, and feel no regret at the end of the day? In our modern

society, euthanasia is still a familiar topic for debate. Medical practitioners, legal experts,

supporters, and critics of euthanasia have expressed and presented their arguments with the issue.

This paper will try to probe and analyze the dilemma faced by medical practitioners worldwide

as to whether euthanasia hinders their obligation to save lives, or fulfill their oath to reduce the

patient's suffering.

From the original Greek meaning, euthanasia stands for a good death, translated in

English to mean mercy killing or natural demise (Campbell & Black, 2014). The term mercy

killing is the second trend definition in Western history. Francis Bacon seems to be the first to

follow the concept of using a doctor's skills and knowledge to help the terminally-ill people have

restful demise to prepare the soul (Bacon, pp.124- 124; Beaty). He called it euthanasia exterior or

outward euthanasia. Bacon emphasized that physicians should ensure that patients die just how

Augustus Caesar had, as though he was falling into a deep sleep.

The types of euthanasia can be another angle for deliberation. The two distinct types of

euthanasia are passive and active euthanasia. Each of which brings a question of whether it is

acceptable or not. Active euthanasia occurs when a medical practitioner's action directly caused

the death of the patient, like overdosing him with a pain killer. On the other hand, passive

euthanasia consists of letting the patient die on their own by only taking no preventive action to

try to save their life. It can happen in two ways: withdrawing treatment or withholding treatment.

When we remove the treatment, we are depriving the patient of the needed medication or
 3

equipment to sustain life. For instance, when we turn off the life support machine and wait for

the patient to natural expires. In withholding treatment, we no longer give the necessary

medication, procedure, or operation to extend the patient's life. For example, doctors do not

conduct any surgery to the terminally ill patient and wait until the patient's life finally diminishes

(BBC - Ethics - Euthanasia: Forms of euthanasia, 2020). In tradition, people accept passive more

than active euthanasia. However, some claim that active euthanasia is more humane. From a

broader perspective, euthanasia can be classified as voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary,

depending on the prevailing conditions. The voluntary one involves the patient deciding by

himself; non-voluntary is when a decision is made for a patient when he/she is out the conscious

mind. At the same time, involuntary involves a decision made against a patient’s will (Brody,

2013).

Euthanasia thus attracted both opponents and supporters in all countries across the world.

The Romans and ancient Greeks accepted this practice as a standard moral practice. In

agreement with this decision were three religious traditions of the Asians composed of

Confucianism, Buddhism, and Shintoism. Contrary to this opinion, by the Asian religious

tradition, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism stood firm to reject it (Engbo et al., 2013).

Several arguments are set for and against euthanasia, such as the Americans and Europeans.

Reasons set forth to support active mercy killing include; relieving the patient of psychological

and physical suffering. Another idea in support of this act is the practical argument that

euthanasia helps ease the misery of terminal illness. Contrary to these arguments that are in

favor, is that some are totally against the idea. In the discussions that are against, experts claimed

that religion forbids taking away life, which makes mercy killing wrong. They also anticipated

that cures to stop the terminal illness would soon be available. Therefore, as gatekeepers of the
 4

health facilities, nurses, despite having personal views on religion, culture, and ethics, are

expected to protect life (Keown, 2018). Through an examination of rights and utilitarianism,

critics can demonstrate the values of conflicts.

With the existence of arguments and debates revolving around euthanasia, two theories

are to explain better why the actions of euthanasia may be the only option. These theories are

deontology and utilitarianism. Utilitarianism focuses on an effort being morally correct if it is for

the good of the most considerable numbers. To this, individual rights do not matter. On the other

hand, deontology considers how something is done, let alone just focusing on the consequences

of a specific action (Olech, 2013). These are the theories that explain the reasons for and against

euthanasia.

For instance, the case of Dr. Claudio de la Rocha. He attended to a patient with lung

cancer in St. Mary’s Hospital in Timmins, Ontario, Canada. The woman informed her parents

that she wanted the respirator out and end her suffering. Dr. de la Rocha obliged with the request

of the family. He injected the longsuffering woman with morphine to ease the feeling of

suffocation. Dr. Claudio then inoculated the woman with potassium chloride that swiftly caused

her death. The physician was condemned for giving a lethal dose. He was on probation for three

years. The Ontario’s Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons charged

de la Rocha with professional malpractice. He was penalized with a license suspension for ninety

days. The punishment could be terminated. Provided that the doctor could write a manual on

how to avoid his misjudgment in the medical field (2020).

The society gives a provision to certain obligations of the sick people that ought to be

held up. On the contrary, these obligations may not be legally and morally supportable. The

barriers to these obligations and the sick person's free will are related to the expectations derived

from religious, social, and moral implications. As inscribed in the Death with Dignity Act, other
 5

persons apart from the patient are banned from making decisions that pertain to active euthanasia

(Campbell & Black, 2014). This act is evident in the way euthanasia is perceived in the global

diversity with different perspectives that indicate that the stakeholder’s opinions count. In this

regard, those entrusted with the euthanasia dilemma are the government, healthcare

professionals, religious groups, insurance companies, and the family. Other than the patient, the

second closest stakeholder is the family, who has to agree to allow their loved one to die by a

wish. The health practitioners come into play when it comes to administering the medication.

The government, on the other hand, plays a crucial role in regulating the practice. By controlling,

the government, through the legislature, sets rules and regulations, which are then enforced as

they limit the physicians and the patients except in cases where it is the only option left.

Currently, most Americans still imagine that physician-assisted killing should be

considered legal. In their perception, law-makers should scrap off federal laws that prohibit

mercy killing. Despite these opinions, euthanasia is termed illegal in all the States except for

Washington, Oregon, and Montana. For the case of the Washington and Oregon states, Death

dignity acts to support the legalization of euthanasia. The target persons who were free and open

to carry out the practice were those who were terminally ill. In Montana, the Supreme Court, in

the case of Baxter v. Montana, the court declared that there was not a single ruling in the state

constitution that burred patients from voluntary euthanasia (Campbell & Black, 2014).

According to the passed legislation, the patients should have three witnesses with two verbal

consents and one written before the practice can be authorized, aside from the ground that the

patients be in their sound mind.

In the whole world, since the issue brought different arguments, Belgium and the

Netherlands are noted to be the only nations that legalized the practice of mercy killing. The
 6

states of Oregon and Washington, the U.S also followed the trend of these countries. The critical

barriers to the legalization of this practice are; religion, governments, cultural beliefs, education,

media, and general fear of the unknown.

There is an excellent relationship between education and matters of euthanasia. The more

education one gets, the better they tend to understand and stand to defend their positions and

rights. Through understanding their rights to autonomy, educated people stand to challenge facts

that burr the practice of mercy killing. This idea is because rights attached to independence gives

the patient a free will to decide what they want to do with their life. With proper education, the

matter of pros and cons linked to euthanasia also resurfaces. Among the advantages attached to

euthanasia are; relief from excess pain, financial strain, low-quality life, and struggle. Despite

these advantages, there are also limitations, which include the killing of another family member

out of hatred, loss of the respect that is attached to human life and according to the Christian

religion, it is only God who has the mandate to take away breath (Campbell & Black, 2014).

Therefore, taking away life against God’s command is considered sinful.

Physicians are definitely in an awkward position of justifying whether euthanasia is

ethical or even legal. People say that suffering is a natural process in life and death. Humans

have the autonomy to undergo that process entirely or decide to cut it comfortably and briefly.

Both the critics and advocates of euthanasia have presented arguments and pieces of evidence to

support their stands. This contradiction is evident in the way cases set by different people,

organizations, religions, and even the government of different countries. Our religious beliefs

and secular philosophies may support or contradict our stand in this matter. However, euthanasia

will be an option to people and family members who do not want the pain to be the last memory

of their loved one’s living breath.

 7

References

BBC - Ethics - Euthanasia: Anti-euthanasia arguments. Bbc.co.uk. (2020). Retrieved 24 June

2020, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml.

BBC - Ethics - Euthanasia: Forms of euthanasia. Bbc.co.uk. (2020). Retrieved 24 June 2020,

from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/forms.shtml.

BBC - Ethics - Euthanasia: Pro-euthanasia arguments. Bbc.co.uk. (2020). Retrieved 24 June

2020, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/infavour/infavour_1.shtml.

Brody, B. A. (Ed.). (2013). Suicide and euthanasia: historical and contemporary themes (Vol.

35). Springer Science & Business Media.

Campbell, C. S., & Black, M. A. (2014). Dignity, death, and dilemmas: a study of Washington

hospices and physician-assisted death. Journal of Pain and symptom management, 47(1),

137-153.

Engbo, A., Kragh, K., Hansen, M. F., Larsen, S. M., Christiansen, S., & Kristensen, S. N. (2013).

Ethics, Morals, and Euthanasia.

Keown, J. (2018). Euthanasia, ethics, and public policy: an argument against legalization.

Cambridge University Press.

Olech, M. (2013). Peter Singer on Utilitarianism of Preference: Arguments for and against

Euthanasia. Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe), 55.