Paper Example on Ethical and Legal Dimensions of Euthanasia in Nursing

Introduction

The concept of Euthanasia is a significant ethical issue in the contemporary era. It has been a subject under discussion for many decades globally, however, with rapid advancements in the medical industry, it has gained great focus in the community as well as in medical society. It has led to the development of various theories in an attempt to address it, but it remains a controversial topic. Health care experts and practitioners such as nurses regularly experience ethical challenges while working with a terminal patient who in most cases make requests to nurses to assist them in terminating their lives. Therefore, nurses are forced to make decisions and decide between their unacceptable or difficult alternatives and the regular obligation to utilize their moral reasoning to resolve these ethical challenges (Jordan, 2017). Therefore, euthanasia as an ethical issue may enforce nurses to different legal and ethical aspects concerning assisted. These aspects are currently being discussed in various nations around the world. This has led to the emergence of different opinions centered on the values of religious beliefs and personal morality. Different scholars and scientists have formulated various theories in an attempt to address the legal and ethical aspects associated with euthanasia. This essay discusses the ethical and legal dimension of euthanasia in nursing to limit and decrease the existing argument among nurses concerning assisted death to enhance accountability, communication, and clear decisions. It starts by defining the meaning of each form of euthanasia, connects ethical theories to assisted suicide, discuss its legal aspects and concludes with a discussion of how ethical issues impacts individual and the general nursing practice.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Definition and Types of Euthanasia

The term euthanasia is derived from a Greek word eu thanatos which denotes to good demise in other words death with suffering but with dignity. Euthanasia can, therefore, be described as the act of killing a patient by a physician but on patient's interest and request. There is two form of mercy killing namely active and passive euthanasia (Jordan, 2017). Active euthanasia can be described as undertaking certain measure to directly initiate the demise of a patient while passive euthanasia refers to the act of permitting a patient to die through withdrawal of treatment. There is also another category of assisted suicide namely non-voluntary and voluntary euthanasia. Involuntary mercy killing, a patient provides his agreement to a physician or a nurse to initiate his death whereas in non-voluntary mercy killing, the patient's agreement is unavailable, for instance, when he is in a comma (Bollen et al., 2016). Involuntary mercy killing may happen when assisted suicide is executed to an individual with the ability to provide informed consent but fail to give it because they were never asked or they do not agree to die. Therefore, nurses may face different questions from both the patients as well as their families particularly when advising them regarding the mercy killing of a patient.

Ethical Theories to Euthanasia

Individuals who support euthanasia hold that it is a vital principle of autonomy that permits patients the right to decide what actions are best for their lives. In this situation, whether they should die or live. They also believe that no individual should be forced to live via terminal suffering. Additionally, where a doctor or a nurse is not in a position to alleviate the suffering and pain of such patient in any manner, then helping in demise is tolerable. On the other hand, those against euthanasia hold that it is not the nurse's occupation description to decide on the fate of their patient even in cases patient consent is provided. They additionally consider that killing is naturally wrong (Jordan, 2017). Therefore, most nurses and other individuals center their belief in euthanasia within ethical theories. Ethical models assist shape an individual's actions, behavior, and molarity in relation to their moral perception.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism ethical theory leans on the weight of outcomes instead of rules and puts concentration on bad and good rather than what is considered wrong and right. Even though utilitarianism is discussed as a large cluster, it is always splinted in various sub-categories. However, for this paper, it is broken into act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Rule- utilitarianism holds that an action of a person is morally right where it sides with the codes or rules which were already formulated on the practical background. It contents that an individual should perform in accordance with the guidelines which introduces the greatest equilibrium of good over evil for each involved in a certain situation (Mandal, Ponnambath & Parija, 2016). On the other hand, act-utilitarianism denotes that a particular type of activity may be incorrect with one setting, but it may be correct in another setting. Thus, this context is either wrong or right taking into account the side with the highest degree of good for every individual.

Utilitarianism has some connection with euthanasia when considering an individual with a terminal illness and severe pain. Such patients may have a desire for a nurse to aid them to initiate or speed their demise, for instance, through the prescription of a lethal medicine. Therefore, when considering utilitarianism in this context, it would raise the likelihood of a justified exception to the rule of not killing. Additionally, in the majority of rule-utilitarianism perception, murder in self-defense is perceived as a defensible exclusion of do not kill (Mandal, Ponnambath & Parija, 2016). Thus, the rule-utilitarianism which supports euthanasia holds that where terminally ill individuals can evade a prolonged, painful demise, other people involved in their treatment also benefit. Nurses, doctors, and hospitals would benefit from utilizing excessive resources which would otherwise be used with another patient who may at the end live long. Additionally, the act- utilitarianism on this subject agree with the rule- utilitarianism. Kant contended that do not kill is a form of moral guideline which should be adhered. However, where an individual is terminally ill and experiencing severe pain, and desires to die then every individual involved in his treatment would benefit from his death hence euthanasia is justifiable in this case (Kocyigit & Karadag, 2016).

Kantian Deontology

The core founder of this model, Immanuel Kant, held that the definite imperative is the basic value which is the foundation of every moral responsibility. He perceived that it is centered on two distinct formulations. The most prominent formulation within the context of an ethical and legal aspect of euthanasia contend that treat human beings not as a means but often as the same time as the end (Mandal, Ponnambath & Parija, 2016). They extended this formulation by categorizing Kantian deontology into various duties which encompasses an imperfect duty to others, perfect duty to self, and perfect duties to others such as respecting other individuals which encompass not lying, keeping promises, and avoid killing others. Therefore, just like in utilitarian theory, there is no exception in breaching these responsibilities since they are basically off limits. On the perfect duty to self, it denotes that one is respect to him or herself. Kant holds that perfect duties to self-encompasses suicide which is unacceptable under any context. Thus, killing oneself according to Kantian deontology is considered to be against the moral values of categorical imperative hence it should never be breached (Kocyigit & Karadag, 2016). His deontology additionally reveals the beneficence duty that rests within the imperfect responsibility to other individuals cluster. Kant holds that people are required to address others with respect as well as increase their happiness though not at the cost of perfect duty (Mandal, Ponnambath & Parija, 2016).

In relation to the Kantian deontology, it is evident that Kant believed that there exists no justification for nurses to undertake euthanasia. This is because since the perfect duty to self and others appear to argue that regardless of the context, killing is wrong. Nevertheless, via the beneficence duty, euthanasia would be generating happiness for individuals with a desire to die. Additionally, this is nonetheless, against his categories such as perfect duties to self and perfect duty to others that are required not be breached in relation to his belief in the categorical imperative (Kocyigit & Karadag, 2016).

Legal Aspects of Euthanasia

As euthanasia continuous being a controversial topic in globally, it has attracted different legal aspects. For instance, in Australia there are various laws which have been formulated in relation to mercy killing and in the majority of the states, the legislation take is as illegal. Initially, euthanasia was legal under the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act of 1995. However, it was abolished by the Australian government due to intense debate against it. In others countries such as Netherlands and Belgium, Euthanasia is legal (Bollen et al., 2016). Additionally, according to various studies in these countries, they concluded that many demises initiated through euthanasia than other means appeared to be higher on cancer patients, mem, and younger individuals where most of them died while in their houses. In approximately all situations, poor social interactions, poor wound healing, and unbearable and severe pain on these individuals were reported.

Under the Canadian regulations on passive euthanasia and living wills, both are a legal dilemma. Therefore, it is prohibited to assist and abet killing which is outlined under section 241b of the Canadian law of Criminal Code. It states that euthanasia is an indictable offense with a likelihood of a fourteen-year sentence in prison where the appellant is discovered guilty (Naga & Mrayyan, 2013). Additionally, the British law has similar aspect towards assisted suicide by viewing it as illegal in any means (Emanuel, Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Urwin & Cohen, 2016). Nevertheless, in Greece, it supports only passive euthanasia which is backed by the Supreme Court distinctly for brain demise patients. Contrary, active euthanasia that is any undertaking to terminate a patient's life is considered illegal (Voultsos, Njau & Vlachou, 2010). On the other hand, Jewish and Israeli laws view mercy killing as illegal. However, in certain situations, it may be acceptable under the Israeli law (Naga & Mrayyan, 2013).

In the United States, active euthanasia is considered illegal in most states. Whereas passive, voluntary euthanasia is legal since a patient has the right to discard any form of medical intervention (Emanuel, Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Urwin & Cohen, 2016). In Italy, euthanasia is also illegal. This was illustrated by a legal and social crisis which arose when a woman involved in a car accident had remained unconscious since 1992. This forced the Prime Minister Perleskony to reject to endorse assisted suicide for this woman arguing that no individual has the right to terminate the life of another person. The case proceeded to Supreme court which ruled on the favor to terminate the woman's life through euthanasia by ceasing giving her meals and drinks. Therefore, the decision made by the government of Italy goes against the sentence given by the Supreme Court regarding the Italian law. It is thus evident in states which permit euthanasia, for instance, Belgium and Netherlands; there exists poor hospice and palliative care while in nations which forbid it, there are dev...