Voluntary/Assisted Euthanasia
Euthanasia or assisted suicide is a complex medical phenomenon. It is surrounded by ethical and moral complications. Dax Cowart and Theresa Marie are two individuals, one requested to be euthanized but denied while the other had euthanasia imposed on her. Sanctity of human life is paramount and there cannot be moral compromise on it, however, a person that decides to end their pain and suffering through euthanasia should have the right to do so.
The cases of Dax Cowart and Theresa Marie are similar yet has two entirely different outcomes. Dax, is a successful lawyer, fully competent as established by his physician. He had a car accident involving propane gas explosion, which burned over 2/3rd of his body. He went through excruciatingly painful treatments but later decided that he wanted to die but was never granted his wish. Throughout his treatment at the hospital he wanted to die by refusing disinfectant treatment (Burt, 1998). In 1974, while he was still in hospital he made his “Let Me Die” video, and then in 1984 he made another video “Dax Case” (Burt, 1998). He presented his case that he was justified in requesting euthanasia. Marie on the other hand, was diagnosed with persistent vegetative state (PVS), but showed signs of loving her family and perhaps of living. Her husband took the case to court requesting assisted euthanasia, which was granted.
The legal standing on euthanasia is complicated, as circumstances make the term vague. Euthanasia is also referred to as ‘assisted suicide’ or ‘mercy killing’, which sheds more light on the matter. No lawyer would advise a physician to be involved in euthanasia without the possibility of prosecution (Humber, 2013). A famous case that can help understand the legal view of this matter is the case of Dr. Herman N. Sander, who entered in his patient’s chart that he had injected air into the patient’s blood stream. The court ruled in the favor of the defendant (Humber, 2013). There is a subtle but very important distinction between killing and simply ceasing the treatment. On the surface it might make no difference in a moral debate because the result in both the cases is that the patient dies. However, if a random person is given a choice between injecting an embolism and turning off the respirator of a terminally ill patient as a part of euthanasia, there is a high chance that they would choose the second option. From a legal perspective it is not a simple matter to establish euthanasia given that the law is not unanimous throughout the states of America. The law is also not the same throughout the rest of the world as some countries completely ban the practice of assisted suicide, while others might allow it in some form.
The biggest stakeholder in the scenario is the patient. Others include blood relatives, spouses and friends. It varies from person to person as to the number of stakeholders involved. Also, the hospital, the doctors and the attending nurse are stakeholders. In the case of a legal battle, they might be called to explain patient’s condition, treatment and other relevant facts.
Euthanasia has a great impact on social and moral values. Society is a collection of individuals that come together to live in harmony. People depend on each other for different services and needs. Society is another name of a community. Hence, deliberately ending a person’s life has a huge impact on the society as a whole. It reflects what the society thinks about life in general; who has the right to live and die. Nursing practice has a unique perspective in this matter. As an independent body, nurses do not hold much power in the legal standing of euthanasia. For instance, in Marie’s case, the family was clearly not in the favor of euthanizing her, but her husband took the matter to the court. He established that his wife would have wanted to end her life. In this moral debate, nurses can only follow the law despite what their moral compass directs them to do.
Euthanasia is primarily a matter of ethics and morality. When it is right, if it is right, to euthanize a person? Sometimes, it truly is mercy to end someone’s suffering. By either passive or active euthanasia a terminally ill patient might die sooner instead of writhing in excruciating pain for days or months. However, circumstances should determine whether euthanizing is required or not. Dax case is different than Marie’s. Dax in his full senses wanted to die as he could not bear the pain of treatment. Marie on the other hand, seemed to be happy seeing her mother, and seemed responsive, proving that she was not brain dead. Marie was still a person and did not consent to remove the feeding tube. A rigid ethical theory cannot be established here as too much depends on individual cases. However, the consent or the implied consent of the patient is necessary to establish.
References
Burt, R. A. (1998). Confronting Death: Who Chooses? Who Controls? A Dialogue between Dax Cowart and Robert Burt. Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 706. Retrieved August 29, 2016 from http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/706
De Casterle, B. D., Verpoort, C., De Bal, N., & Gastmans, C. (2006). Nurses’ views on their involvement in euthanasia: a qualitative study in Flanders (Belgium). Journal of medical ethics, 32(4), 187-192.
Franklin Springs Family Media. (2009) The Terri Schiavo Story. YouTube.com. Retrieved August 29, 2016 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cki55BM42kw
Humber, J. M. (Ed.). (2013). Biomedical ethics and the law. Springer Science & Business Media.
