Was The Doctor Right?

Name.

Course.
School
Due Date
 A mercy killing case was heard in a Dutch court. In the case, a doctor was
charged of forcibly terminating the life of an Alzheimer sufferer. When she was able
to affirm her choice, the patient had earlier asked for suicide. Later on, though, her
sickness caused her to lose the ability to affirm her choice. Euthanasia was carried
out, according to the doctor, who justified it as being in the patient's best interests.
The choice to terminate the patient's life without getting her permission sparked
intense discussion among medical professionals and outside of it. While some contend
that the doctor behaved in the patient's best interests, others contend that the doctor
went against ethical standards and the liberty of the patient. The euthanasia case
brought to light the difficulties in deciding how to terminate a patient's life when they
are experiencing cognitive deterioration and the need for a more sophisticated
approach to suicide. In this article, I'll make the case that the doctor's decision to put
the patient to sleep was wrong, and I'll do so with the help of deontological and
utilitarian justifications.
The physician's decision to end the life of the Dementia patient without first
obtaining her consent violated the notion of autonomy. A basic ethical concept known
as autonomy affirms a patient's freedom to make their own healthcare choices. The
only reason for which authority can legitimately be exerted over any member of a
cultured society against his will, according to Mill (1863), is to stop damage to others.
The patient had dementia, so the doctor's choice to terminate her life was against her
will because she was unable to affirm her decision to do so. This decision also
violated the non-maleficence tenet, which requires medical workers to avoid harming
patients.The definition of right and evil, according to Bentham (1781), is "the greatest
pleasure of the greatest number."Even though the physician may have been motivated
by a desire to end the patient's misery, it is difficult to determine whether the patient's
distress was significantly larger than the harm caused by the decision to breach her
autonomy in this case. Also because doctor's decision was driven by personal values
and beliefs rather than patient wishes, it breaches patients' trust in the healthcare
professionals they receive.
The doctor's choice to euthanize the Alzheimer sufferer may have detrimental
effects on society as a whole. According to utilitarianism, which stresses doing the
most good for the highest amount of individuals, the doctor's choice might have
unforeseen effects that go beyond the current problem. According to Mill (1863),
"actions are proper in measure to how they incline to promote happiness, and
erroneous in measure to how they strive to produce unhappiness." In this situation, the
doctor's choice to terminate the patient's life without getting her permission could
cause patients and healthcare workers to lose confidence in one another. People may
become less likely to seek medical attention out of concern that their desires won't be
honored. This collapse in confidence may also have wider social repercussions, such
as a decline in the readiness to fund medical facilities and study.According to
Bentham in 1781, the decision by the doctor to euthanize the woman without getting
her explicit consent undermines the fiber of felicity that is founded on the confidence
that patients and healthcare professionals have for one another. " The utility doctrine
recognizes this subservience and assumes it to be the cornerstone of the structure
whose purpose is to raise the fabric of felicity using reason and rules."  Therefore, the
decision to end the patient's life without first obtaining her consent was morally
incorrect and could have a negative effect on society.
In conclusion, it was unethical for the doctor to terminate the Alzheimer patient's
life without getting her permission. The choice went against the autonomy concept,
which acknowledges individuals' liberty in making healthcare choices. It also went
against the non-maleficence concept, which calls for medical professionals to refrain
from hurting patients. Additionally, the choice might have a detrimental impact on
society as a whole because it might erode patient-provider confidence, which might
have wider ramifications for healthcare infrastructure and study. The judgment was
not made with the patient's desires in mind, which diminishes the basic confidence
that both patients and healthcare professionals have for one another.It is conceivable
that the doctor's motivation may have been to lessen the patient's suffering.Therefore,
even in situations of severe pain, healthcare professionals should always make an
effort to honor the liberty of their patients and make sure that their choices are
founded on the patient's clear desires.
 References

Bentham, J. (1781). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.

Retrieved February 22, 2023, from
https://historyofeconomicthought.mcmaster.ca/bentham/morals.pdf

The Gurdian . (2019, August 26). Netherlands euthanasia case: Doctor 'acted with
Best Intentions'. The Guardian. Retrieved February 22, 2023, from
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/26/doctor-on-trial-landmark-
euthanasia-case-netherlands-dementia

Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill - McMaster Faculty of Social

Sciences. Retrieved February 22, 2023, from
https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/utilitarianism.pdf