Literature Review
In Australia, regular attempts have been made to reform the law related with euthanasia. On the other hand, there is a trend in favor of the realization of voluntary euthanasia in Europe and North America. Discussions regarding the issues related with euthanasia can also be found in the media. These are by frequent prosecution initiated by family members, medical practitioners and friends who are in some way concerned with the death of people (Bulow et al., 2008).
Literature Review:
Euthanasia can be described as the intentional, deliberate act of ending the life of another person in order to relieve the suffering of that person. An example in this regard can be given of the situation where a doctor gives an injection of a legal substance to the patient to relieve the person from unbearable pain. Generally the term euthanasia is used in the following ways:-
Voluntary euthanasia: in this case, euthanasia is performed as a result of the request made by the person whose life has to be terminated and that person is competent. An example is the situation where the doctor gives an injection of lethal substance to the competent patient in order to relate the person from acute pain (Otlowski , 2010).
Non-voluntary euthanasia: in this case, euthanasia is performed even when the person is not competent to give consent. An example would be the case where an injection of a lethal substance is given by the doctor to the patient who is in post coma, unresponsive stage (Goldman and Schafer, eds. 2008,).
Involuntary euthanasia: in this case, euthanasia is home and person is also competent, but that person has not expressed his wish to die or as expressed that he does not want to die.
Assisted suicide: suicide can be described as the intentional act of killing oneself. In this regard, assisted suicide takes place when a person intentionally kills himself with the assistance of other person who has provided the knowledge or means for doing so (Kerridge, Lowe and Stewart, 2000).
Assisted suicide needs to be distinguished from euthanasia as the person providing the assistance does not perform the final act that results in the death. In fact, the depth is the result of the actions of the person themselves. On the other hand, euthanasia takes place as a result of the actions of the first person, for example, the doctor which caused the deaths of another person (Patterson and George, 2005).
Voluntary Euthanasia
Legal position:
Generally the term euthanasia is used incorrectly to characterize a particular type of practice. However, this term can be described as an umbrella term, as it covers a wide array of practices that are the different types of euthanasia. Among these types are:
- Passive voluntary euthanasia;
- Active voluntary euthanasia;
- Passive involuntary euthanasia; and
- Active involuntary euthanasia.
At present, withholding or withdrawing medical treatment takes place in Australia in different circumstances and regulations. First of all the Medical Board of Australia and the Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine has provided the medical practitioners are involved in good medical practice. They have to understand that it is not their duty to prolong life at all costs.
However, it is their duty to know when not to initiate and when to cease making the attempts for prolonging life. And at the same time ensuring that appropriate relief is received by the patients from distress. It also needs to be recognized that it is the right of the patients to refuse treatment or to make a request that the treatment already started should be withdrawn.
In the same way, it has been mentioned by the Australian Medical Association that medical treatment may not be required to be given in cases where it does not offer reasonable hope of benefit or if it results in an unacceptable burden for patients (Finlay and Jeff, 2005).
However, a debate has been going on regarding if such measures can be considered to be falling under the purview of the term euthanasia. In this regard, the Australian Medical Association claims that withdrawing or not initiating life-prolonging treatment does not amount to euthanasia and similarly cannot be considered as physician-assisted suicide, particularly with the medical practitioner is acting on the basis of good medical practice (Somerville, 2003).
In Australia, laws have been enacted by each State and Territory to regulate the eighth of withholding or withdrawing medical treatment when it is done for the purpose of hastening the death of the patient.
However, there is no legislation in Australia which characterizes practices like euthanasia.
Ethical issues:
In Australia, States have dealt with the issue of euthanasia. For example, the legislation was passed in 1995 in the Northern Territory which allowed euthanasia. However, this legislation was overturned by the introduction of legislation by the Federal Parliament in 1997. Attempts have been made later on to reactivate this legislation. In the same way, this issue has also been debated in the parliaments of Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. Similarly, the NSW Parliament has twice considered and rejected legislation in favor of the euthanasia. However the issue keeps rising its head again and again.
Non-voluntary Euthanasia
For a long time, the debate related with euthanasia has remained controversial in the modern society. Issues related with euthanasia have remained significant source of social debate. It is widely acknowledged that there are certain circumstances where medical decision-making may contribute to guess that the death of a patient. Our different societies have varying understanding regarding the specific role played by the health professionals in these circumstances. Moreover, it also needs to be noted that generate the death of the patient takes place in the hospital. The patient is far from his family and friends.
As a result, the environment is prone to abandonment and loneliness. During the 1960s, the rise of hospice movement, as well as the recent development of palliative care can be considered as the philosophical and practical approach that can be adopted towards death and dying. It provides an indication that this issue needs to be addressed properly in the form of a significant cultural transition. Therefore the modern society has to deal with a vital question if the law should allow voluntary euthanasia or suicide assisted by the physician (Walsh et al., 2009).
In the Western world, several attempts have been made to legalize euthanasia, but a few could succeed. However number of reasons can be given both in support of legalizing euthanasia and against. Traditionally, in case of the countries with a Christian tradition, the practice of euthanasia and suicide assisted by physician has been morally condemned as a result of the high sanctity of human life. But with the rise of secular pluralistic societies, a different meaning has been provided to the concept of personal autonomy, as well as the right of self-determination.
Arguments for and against euthanasia
A significant argument against euthanasia is that it has the potential of becoming a slippery slope and the legalization of involuntary euthanasia will follow soon. According to these opponents, it is nearly impossible to make sure that all acts of euthanasia were really voluntary and there is no risk of abuse regarding the liberalization of law related with euthanasia. It is claimed that into the reason that involuntary euthanasia cannot be separated, then it will be nearly impossible to regulate and as a result, there will be a risk that murderers may not be brought to justice as their crimes will be considered as involuntary euthanasia.
Similarly, concern has also been expressed that the doctors may end up killing seriously ill patients without seeking their permission. In worst cases, they may start to kill patients for other reasons like to save money or to free up beds. Therefore it is pointed out that these cases reveal how dangerous it can be to legalize euthanasia is may in turn result in legalizing involuntary euthanasia.
Involuntary Euthanasia
On the other hand, it has been strongly argued by the supporters of euthanasia that I write is available to people to end their lives, when and how they want. Therefore, the persons were in support of voluntary euthanasia are of the opinion that each person has the right to control their body and life. As a result, people should be free to decide when and how they are going to die. The notion behind this argument is that it is always preferable to avoid placing unnecessary restraints on human rights.
Another argument that can be given for this purpose is that as death is a private issue, if no harm is caused to any other person, there is no right to deny if someone wants to die. According to the supporters of this argument if euthanasia is able to promote the best interests of all the parties involved, and there is no violation of human rights, it should be morally accepted.
One argument that is given against euthanasia is that it is not required when proper palliative care is available. Drugs and other medical support can be given to tell Minelli in patients which helps in relieving the pain and mental effects suffered by the terminally ill patients. Therefore, by providing competent palliative care, we may be possible to relieve the pain and suffering of the terminally ill patients. It will also provide a better quality life to these patients. The WHO has also stated in this regard that palliative care of one’s life, and according to it, there is a normal process. Therefore it does not hasten or postpones death. It works to provide relief pain and suffering. It also integrates psychological and spiritual aspects concerning the patient.
The supporters of legalizing of euthanasia also give another point in support of their viewpoint. According to them, if we put aside the notion that there cannot be something positive, we may consider that there are certain cases where it can be a better option instead of allowing the patient to remain in terrible pain and suffering. Therefore if death is not considered as the worst outcome in all the cases, then a number of arguments against euthanasia may not be present.
The reason is that several of these arguments are based on the notion that death cannot be good in any case. Generally, people avoided as they enjoy and highly value their lives. But in case of terminally ill patients, was suffering severe pain, and are not in a position to enjoy their life, this may not be true. The result is that these patients may not be willing to suffer any more pain and distress. Therefore, they may want to end their life. Therefore, the supporters of euthanasia believe that in such cases, the death of the patient may be a better option as it is keeping the patient alive. Moreover, the wishes of the patient need to be respected in such cases.
Conclusion:
Therefore in the end, it needs to be noted that strong arguments are present in favor of legalization of euthanasia and also against it. The result is that the debate is still going on, whether voluntary euthanasia needs to be allowed or not. However, in view of the ethical and legal position related with euthanasia and also the arguments that have been given in support of and against euthanasia, it can be said that if the life of a terminally ill patient has become nothing but suffering, then euthanasia can be considered as one of the available options and helps the patient die with dignity if a request has been made by the patient in this regard.
Therefore, despite the strong opposition of euthanasia, practical and collaborator policy frameworks are required on palliative and end-of-life care, which need to be provided by the healthcare system, the federal government and also the legal system, which can safeguard and strengthen medical practice.
References
Bartels L, Otlowski M. 2010, A right to die? Euthanasia and the law in Australia. J Law Med. 17(4):532-55
Bulow HH, Sprung CL, Reinhart K, Prayag S, Du B, Armaganidis A, 2008, The world’s major religions’ points of view on end-of-life decisions in the intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med, 423-30.
George R J, Finlay IG, Jeff rey D. 2005, Legalised euthanasia will violate the rights of vulnerable patients. BMJ, 331(7518):684-5
Goldman L, Schafer AI, eds. 2008, Goldman’s Cecil Medicine, 23rd ed. USA: Saunders, Chapter 2, Bioethics in the practice of medicine; p.4-9
Kerridge I, Lowe M, Stewart C. 2000, Ethics and law for the health professions. 3rd ed. New South Wales: Federation Press
Patterson R, George K. 2005, Euthanasia and assisted suicide: A liberal approach versus the traditional moral view. J Law Med, 12(4):494-510.
Somerville M.A. 2003, “Death talk”: debating euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in Australia. Med J Aust, 178(4):171-4
Walsh D, Caraceni AT, Fainsinger R, Foley K, Glare P, Goh C, 2009, Palliative medicine. 1st ed. Canada: Saunders, Chapter 22, Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide; p.110-5.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
