Euthanasia

The word Euthanasia comes from Greek roots meaning “good death”. It refers to the practice, which ends a life in a manner, which is to relieve pain and suffering (Gielen, Van Den Branden & Broeckaert, 2009). According to Harris (2001) its meaning is specifically “a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering”. There are different characteristics of euthanasia, and different reasons for the administration of this. The act of intentionally killing a human being in the name of euthanasia is an act of omission, being for the benefit of the individual. If the death was not intentional, it cannot be defined as euthanasia. Different types of Euthanasia are as follows: * Voluntary euthanasia: The individual who was killed had requested to be killed * Non-voluntary euthanasia: The individual who was killed made no request to be killed, and the choice for the euthanasia was either passed on to a family member, loved one or a clinical physician who has decided that euthanasia was necessary * Involuntary euthanasia: The individual who was killed had made an expressed wish to the contrary of euthanasia * Assisted suicide: The individual is provided guidance, information and the means to take his or her own life. When this is done in a hospital, it is called “physician assisted suicide” * Euthanasia by Action: The intentional action causing a person’s death, such as administering a lethal injection * Euthanasia by Omission: The individual is not provided any necessary or ordinary care such as food or water; this leads to their death of malnutrition and starvation (Gielen, Van Den Branden & Broeckaert, 2009).

A common argument in connection with euthanasia is in regards to the Bible. The sixth commandment of the Bible states: “Thou shalt not kill”. The commandment does not include any other exceptions for the action (Gielen, Van Den Branden & Broeckaert, 2009). This commandment implies that any action, which causes death, no matter if it were a criminal, act, and act of violence or if the victim prefer that he or she be killed, the Bible explicitly states that no one has the right to kill anyone else. This is because it is believed that only God has the right to give and take life. However, during the time the Bible was written, there was no comforting way to administer a humane means of death. Euthanasia, being defined as “mercy killing”, therefore was not yet existent at that time. Because of modern medicine and the advancement of technologies in this area, euthanasia has been made possible for those who are already suffering and just waiting to die (Gielen, Van Den Branden & Broeckaert, 2009). There are a number of religious oppositions to euthanasia, one coming from the Roman Catholic Church. In the year 1980, during a statement by the Vatican in regards to euthanasia, a representative argued that: “Suffering has a special place in God's saving plan” (qtd. Gielen, Van Den Branden & Broeckaert). The Pope also stated that the people of the church must obey God’s word in order not to risk eternal salvation. This comes into conflict with the Roman Catholic’s historic background when the Catholic Church would approve of war, and carry out crusades during the middle ages. This comes into contrary with the belief of “mercy killing”, which seems more justifiable than killing for the sake of war (Gielen, Van Den Branden & Broeckaert, 2009). Another opposing religion to euthanasia is the teachings of the Islam religion. According to the Qur’an: “When their time comes they cannot delay it for a single hour, nor can they bring it forward by a single hour” (Qur’an 16:61). This is the same as the Catholic and Christian belief that only God can take a life, the Muslims believes that only Allah has this power. The Jewish belief reflects the same nature of opposition (Gielen, Van Den Branden & Broeckaert, 2009). This is seen in the Old Testament which preaches of an injured King Saul, who ordered a young soldier to kill him because he was suffering from his battle wounds also, to avoid being captured alive and maybe even tortured by enemies. The soldier did as the King had pleased, and later King David had that soldier executed for murder; it was stated that superior orders were not of any value as the ones of an individual’s conscience. This comes as slightly odd, because murder and execution were accepted; however the right for someone to take a life to end suffering was frowned upon (Gielen, Van Den Branden & Broeckaert, 2009). There are two religions, which have come to accept euthanasia (Gielen, Van Den Branden & Broeckaert, 2009). Hinduism believes that there are always consequences to actions, which are made; their doctrine does not explicitly say that euthanasia can be allowed, because it breaches the teachings of ahisma, which is doing harm to others. However, it also teaches that one should do good in order to fulfill moral obligations. If this good was to end pain and suffering for an individual, then euthanasia can be justifiable. Buddhism believes that the way a life is ended is the way a new life will begin. Buddhism practices righteous suicide by using it as a political tool, and Buddha himself demonstrated tolerance of suicide (Gielen, Van Den Branden & Broeckaert, 2009). When a warrior has lost in battle, it is only right for him to perform a ritual of suicide to regain his honor. “Criminal Code; Section 241: Everyone who either consents a person to commit suicide or aids a person to commit suicide whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years” (Kluge, 2009). This is seen in Canada, where assisting someone commit suicide is frowned upon. It is believed that people who are clinically depressed or terminally ill are not in their right judgment when they ask to be killed to end their pain and their suffering. The argument here is to value all human life (Kluge, 2009). This value for human life may be eroded according to Canadian values if ever this euthanasia was considered legal. The parliament has also declared their beliefs upon religious-based convictions that believed that suicide and/or assisted suicide is a violation of their supreme deities. Some governments have legalized voluntary euthanasia, yet it is still generally remains criminal homicide to most of the world. Euthanasia is still a very controversial topic in all countries, yet slowly some countries are starting to accept the beliefs that euthanasia should be legalized (Kluge, 2009). This can be seen in Europe, particularly Belgium and the Netherlands. These countries argue that it is within a person’s free will to decide whether he or she wants to live or die. The decision is then left to their clinical physician who has to deal with his or her own conscience afterwards. This act is not punishable and cannot be prosecuted if the physician who performed this act has met the certain legal exceptions for it. In America, euthanasia is still considered to be criminal homicide; the judicial definition of the term “homicide” also includes any intervention which leads to ending an individual’s life, even if it were to relieve from pain and from suffering (Kluge, 2009). However, not all types of homicide is considered as unlawful. There are two types of homicide which are considered to be excusable homicides and/or justifiable. Some states still see that euthanasia is murdered, and physician-assisted suicide is not justifiable.

Euthanasia is still the subject of medical debate, and many nurses and physicians have ethical views on euthanasia, which are not quite well understood (Quaghebeur, de Casterle, & Gastmans, 2009). Because nurses spend their hours in a position of caring for a person who is need of palliative care, they are involved in the field where the request for euthanasia is not uncommon. The caring for such patients, mixed with their feelings as well as their involvement with euthanasia is very complex. There are a number of personal conflicts as well as moral uncertainties in this area. Fears and guilt also exist. On a general theoretical level, it is believed that nurses need to be able to develop an ethical view on euthanasia, which supports the hospital or clinic’s beliefs (Quaghebeur, de Casterle, & Gastmans, 2009). This way, a path for an organized debate on the issue can be voiced out. There are a number of different views in ethics, which can be seen in nursing. There are four ethics for the medical field (Seale, 2009). These are: respect for autonomy, non-malfeasance, beneficence, and justice. This comprises at a large, the ethical debate over euthanasia seen in clinical physicians as well as nurses. However, studies have shown that these ethics can be adjusted and manipulated in certain ways to fit either side of the debate. The respect for autonomy is when a person organizes his or her own private life; this is so that the government, doctors and nurses cannot counteract if euthanasia is requested. The individual’s decision is his or her own self-realization and should be autonomous to the actions taken by the hospital. However, it can also be argued that by respecting one’s autonomy, this involves the constant care for a patient, thus making euthanasia problematic (Quaghebeur, de Casterle, & Gastmans, 2009). The issues of euthanasia in the medical field are yet to be clear and stable. There is no structured right or wrong in the acts of performing euthanasia, however some governments have already legalized it in hospitals if the general physician performing the act meets the medical standards in doing so (Quaghebeur, de Casterle, & Gastmans, 2009). However, the issues of moral and ethical debates still stand in the medical field in terms of euthanasia. It is constantly argued that in the case of euthanasia, the patient has the ultimate right to decide what he or she does with his or her own life. This coincides with free will and freedom of choice (Kluge, 2009). No physician, form of government should be able to dictate on one’s decisions when it comes to ending one’s life. This is up to the person, and if he or she believes that they would like to end their suffering, they should have the right to chose for themselves. People who are not in a position of pain and suffering, or have been diagnosed with a chronic illness, which will eventually lead to death, do not know how it feels. If an individual feels that his or her pain and suffering is enough, euthanasia should be justifiable. It is not only a medical or a religious issue, which is considered. It is the rights of a human being. If we decide to look at it through a religious perspective, we can say that God does not want or intend for us to suffer. In Christianity, it is believed that Jesus Christ had died for all our sins, including all our sicknesses, pain and suffering. If an individual feels that his or her pain and suffering is not according to the will of God, then how can that be religiously unjust? It's not just a medical issue; it's also a moral, ethical and spiritual issue for many of us. My beliefs allow for my choice, so do those of many other people. Patients are tortured in hospitals every day and without a second thought about how much they are suffering or perhaps medical personnel think that the patient's suffering is the less horrific of the two ends (Quaghebeur, de Casterle, & Gastmans, 2009). If you imagine people who are on their deathbed, nothing but skin and bones, cuffed with their tubes and wires, no life left in them. With God, death would have been a sweet gift to them. God is a good God who does not wish this type of suffering for his people. Taken from a political perspective, this can also be seen as just and humane, for the law also does believe in human rights, which includes everyone’s right to free will. The government cannot have the right to take away one’s free will and label it as something, which is of a criminal act.

Euthanasia still undergoes a long debate in terms of ethics and morality (Quaghebeur, de Casterle, & Gastmans, 2009). There are many different views on this topic, which consider many areas of study. The most common subject for debate in this topic is religion, since there are many religions, which coincide with each other, which are against euthanasia. Most religions believe that only God has the right to decide when a person should life, or when a person should die. However, it is argued that during the times when these religious doctrines were created, there was no humane way for taking someone’s life. There are, however, two religions, which do have doctrines and beliefs, which can possibly accept euthanasia. The general idea of euthanasia is still considered as criminal homicide, and it is not a stabilized law in the world. Governments use ethics and religion to base their views on euthanasia, therefore there is still mixed ideas on this issue (Kluge, 2009). Some governments have allowed hospitals to administer euthanasia, only if the physician administering is qualified. No matter what the view on euthanasia, it is still seen, as someone’s human right to decide. Therefore, the choice for euthanasia should be left to the individual who is suffering and is in chronic pain. As its definition, a human has the right to end his or her pain and suffering, and this should be done in a humane and merciful way. Unfortunately, an individual’s right to free will has been taken away by confused views on ethics and morals.

References

Gielen, J., Van Den Branden, S. & Broeckaert, B. (2009). Religion and nurses' attitudes to euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Nursing Ethics. 16(3).
Harris, NM. (2001). The euthanasia debate. J R Army Med Corps 147 (3): 367–70.
Kluge, E.H. (2009). Assisted Suicide & Euthanasia: a proposal for reconstructing the criminal code for Canada. Humanist Perspectives. (155)1.
Quaghebeur, T., de Casterle, B.D., & Gastmans, C. (2009). Nursing and Euthanasia: A Review of Argument-Based Ethics Literature. Nursing Ethics. 16(4).
Seale, C. (2009). Legalization of Euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide: survey of doctor’s attitudes. Pallative Medicine. 23(1); 205-212.