Euthanasia Case

Euthanasia

Euthanasia, meaning good death in Greek, is the clinical practice of ending a suffering patient's life whether it is by assisting in the death of letting the patient die. Some view Euthanasia as an unethical act that goes against the medical purpose of trying to save individuals life. But what about saving an individual's dignity and ending agony and pain? Take consideration of a 76 year old war hero that is in constant pain and suffering as a result of Stage IV terminal cancer, this patient also suffers from diabetes, dementia, and rheumatoid arthritis. He has radiation to control the cancer, can no longer eat his favorite foods because of the diabetes, has a hard time remembering his children's names, and has to get steroids injected into his thighs because of the arthritis. He is as frail as a toothpick and can't get out of bed without experiencing pain. Wouldn't it be considered unethical to prolong the inevitable by constantly performing insignificant operations and giving drugs by the dozen? Not only would Euthanasia be morally justified in this situation but it would also be the only way to help end his misery and the grief of those that are truly concerned with his wellbeing. Beauchamp had a strong argument in the moral justification and physician's consideration of valid request.

Some have contended that doctors are ethically justified when withdrawing treatment thus allowing their patient to die but do not have that same justification in killing their patient. Some may even argue that there is even a difference in killing someone and letting someone die. Beauchamp had a different view on this perspective. As argued best by Beauchamp, the ethics in Euthanasia lies in the moral justification not in the definition of killing or letting die. Even choosing not to act is an action itself and should not be held with less responsibility for that of killing someone. Let's say a cop finds a man slowly bleeding to death from a gunshot wound that he recognizes as the person who attacked his daughter five years ago. The cop then decides that instead of calling emergency response he will walk away from the scene and choose not to report it. Would this be justified just because the cop did not pull the trigger himself? Or would the fact that he made the choice to let him die to get back at him over-rule everything else? The cop would get personal gain from not helping this individual as he would be getting revenge in his own little way. While he did not pull the trigger, him not getting the individual help still lacks moral justification. Another example is a 12 year old girl that attempts to get medically emancipated so that she could put a stop to the endless surgeries that she has experienced all her life as a way to try to save her 21 year old sister. The 12 year old fully understands that stopping the surgeries means that her sister will not have long to live but she also sees the pain in her older sister's eyes. Her older sister has even expressed not wanting to continue on with the surgeries because she will never have a normal life and she is sick of being cut open. While the 12 year old is making the choice to let her sister die, there is no personal gain from it and this would be considered morally ethical. There would have to be several things that occurred to justify the use of euthanasia such as what the person

...