EUTHANASIA _20240709_1932222222_0000.pdf
- 1. EUTHANASIA
- 2. Euthanasia, derived from the Greek words "eu" (good) and "thanatos" (death), means "good death" or "mercy killing." It refers to the practice of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve pain and suffering. Euthanasia is a complex and contentious issue that raises ethical, moral, legal, and emotional questions. INTRODUCTION
- 3. 1. Voluntary Euthanasia Voluntary euthanasia occurs when a competent individual makes a conscious decision to die and asks for help to do so. This is often accompanied by a request for assistance from medical professionals. It is crucial that the person's consent is informed, voluntary, and enduring. TYPES 2. Non-Voluntary Euthanasia Non-voluntary euthanasia happens when the individual is unable to consent due to reasons such as being in a coma, suffering from severe cognitive impairment, or being a minor. Decisions are made by a proxy or legal guardian, often based on the individual's best interests or previously expressed wishes.
- 4. TYPES 3. Involuntary Euthanasia Involuntary euthanasia is conducted against the will of the individual. This type is widely considered unethical and illegal, as it directly violates the person’s autonomy and right to live. 4. Active Euthanasia Active euthanasia involves directly causing the death of a person through specific actions, such as administering a lethal injection. This method is usually quicker and more definitive but is subject to significant ethical and legal scrutiny.
- 5. 5. Passive Euthanasia Passive euthanasia occurs when life-sustaining treatments are withheld or withdrawn, allowing the person to die naturally. TYPES
- 6. HISTORICAL CONTEXT Ancient Greece and Rome: Greek Philosophers: Some Greek philosophers, such as Plato, believed that euthanasia could be an acceptable means to end suffering. ANCIENT PRACTICE Hippocratic Oath: Despite some acceptance, the Hippocratic Oath, a cornerstone of medical ethics attributed to Hippocrates, explicitly forbade physicians from administering deadly drugs, reflecting a commitment to preserving life Roman Attitudes: Romans generally tolerated euthanasia, especially for soldiers and gladiators who suffered grievous injuries. The Roman philosopher Seneca wrote about the acceptance of suicide and euthanasia in the context of unbearable pain.
- 7. HISTORICAL CONTEXT Religious Influences: Christianity: With the rise of Christianity, attitudes towards euthanasia shifted significantly. Christian doctrine emphasized the sanctity of life, viewing life as a gift from God that should not be prematurely ended. This religious perspective influenced many legal and ethical views against euthanasia.
- 8. HISTORICAL CONTEXT MODERN HISTORY 19th and Early 20th Century Medical Advancements: Pain Management: The development of euthanasia and pain management techniques in the 19th century led to new discussions about end-of-life care. While these advancements alleviated some suffering, they also prompted debates on whether it was humane to prolong life in cases of severe illness. Euthanasia Advocacy: The early 20th century saw the formation of organizations advocating for the legalization of euthanasia. The Euthanasia Society of America, founded in 1938, aimed to promote the idea that terminally ill patients should have the right to a dignified death. Netherlands: In 2002, the Netherlands became the first country to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide under strict conditions.
- 9. ETHICAL THEORIES AND PRINCIPLES UTILITARIANISM Definition: philosophy of morality that supports actions that bring pleasure or happiness and opposes actions that bring injury or suffering. -From a utilitarian perspective, euthanasia must be justified by demonstrating that a good death, at a time of one's choice, will bring greater happiness than suffering from a terminal illness, losing one's dignity, and being in agony knowing one's time to die will.
- 10. ETHICAL THEORIES AND PRINCIPLES DEONTOLOGY DEFINITION: states that an action (for example, euthanasia) is good or bad for reasons other than the consequences of the action. Duty to preserve life vs Relief suffering - In Duty to preserve life doctors have a duty to do all they can to keep the patient alive while On the other hand, they have a duty to relieve the patient's suffering.
- 11. ETHICAL THEORIES AND PRINCIPLES Virtue Ethics DEFINITION:An action is only right if it is an action that a virtuous person would carry out in the same circumstances Thus, euthanasia as a last resort might be justified as a compassionate, generous, and considerate way to end a patient's suffering. PRINCIPLISM DEFINITION: an approach to biomedical ethics that uses a framework of four universal and basic ethical principles: respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice
- 12. LEGAL STATUS OF EUTHANASIA Countries and states Euthanasia is currently legal in seven jurisdictions: the Netherlands (since 2002), Belgium (since 2002), Luxemburg (since 2009), Colombia (since 2015), Canada (since 2016) and Victoria (since 2017) and Western Australia (since 2019) in Australia
- 13. LEGAL STATUS OF EUTHANASIA CONSIDERATION To ensure meaningful and effective safeguards for euthanasia, comprehensive procedures are necessary: - Investigate the patient's psychological state, family dynamics, financial implications, medical condition, and disease progression. -Include a reconsideration period to allow the patient, family, and authorities to properly consider requests. -Ensure the patient received good palliative care before considering euthanasia. The patient must consent; the patient must be in severe physically pain; the patient must know that death is near. SAFEGUARDS
- 14. A. Autonomy- highlights people's freedom to make choices about their own lives, particularly those pertaining to their own bodies and medical care B. Relief of Suffering- relief from intolerable pain and the humane ending of a person's life when it becomes a source of severe and chronic suffering C. Quality of life- it’s not just about mere existence but also the ability to live with dignity, comfort and personal fulfillment ARGUMENTS FOR EUTHANASIA
- 15. 1. Personal autonomy does not give you the right to demand that a physician ends your life. If autonomy is respected above all else, physician is merely a "hired hand". 2. This fails to distinguish the difference between causality and culpability. 3. If we allow active (voluntary euthanasia), this will lead to bad consequences, such as: a. Non-voluntary Euthanasia and/or b. Involuntary Euthanasia 4. It is not medicine's place to determine which lives are not worth living or when the burden of life is too great to be borne. ARGUMENTS AGAINST EUTHANASIA
- 16. ETHICAL DILEMMAS AND CONTROVERSIES Voluntary and Involuntary Euthanasia individuals have the right to decide when and how they want to end their lives, especially when facing unbearable suffering and with no hope of improvement. It is seen as a compassionate act to relieve someone's suffering and respect their autonomy. highly controversial and widely condemned from an ethical standpoint. It raises significant moral concerns about violating the person's autonomy and dignity, potentially leading to abuse or misuse of power by caregivers or authorities.
- 17. ETHICAL DILEMMAS AND CONTROVERSIES Passive and Active Euthanasia The controversial point is that holding back treatment of a patient, knowing that the person will die no matter what you do In the case of passive euthanasia, the provider takes an informed decision of not treating beings the best solution. Active euthanasia is an ethically controversial procedure that requires patients to have fully informed consent before making a decision. Coercion undermines the voluntary nature of consent, and performing euthanasia without patient request or incapacity can lead to significant ethical dilemmas
- 18. ETHICAL DILEMMAS AND CONTROVERSIES HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL ROLES Some argue that euthanasia goes against the traditional role of healthcare providers, who are typically committed to preserving life. Others believe it is a compassionate extension of healthcare to alleviate suffering. FAMILY AND SOCIETY IMPACT Family involvement in end-of-life decisions can lead to conflicts if euthanasia is inappropriate or unclear. Societal attitudes towards euthanasia vary, influenced by cultural, religious, and ethical beliefs. Legalizing euthanasia can alter societal norms on life value, healthcare role, and suffering perceptions.
- 19. PUBLIC OPINIONS AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES Public opinion and cultural perspectives on euthanasia vary greatly across different societies and nations. Euthanasia, or the act of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve their suffering, has been a highly debated ethical issue for many years.
- 20. PUBLIC OPINIONS AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES In Western societies, there is a growing acceptance of euthanasia as a means to end suffering and maintain autonomy over one's own life. Proponents of euthanasia argue that individuals have the right to choose when and how they die, particularly in cases of terminal illness or unbearable pain. Public opinion and cultural perspectives on euthanasia vary greatly, with some advocating for the right to die with dignity, while others argue that it goes against the sanctity of life. They believe that it is a compassionate act to allow a terminally ill patient to end their suffering on their own terms, rather than prolonging their pain through aggressive medical interventions.
- 21. PUBLIC OPINIONS AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES opponents of euthanasia, often influenced by religious beliefs and cultural norms, argue that life is sacred and should be preserved at all costs. They believe that legalizing euthanasia could lead to slippery slope arguments, where vulnerable individuals, such as the elderly or disabled, may be pressured into choosing death over life. Additionally, some worry that allowing euthanasia could erode trust in the medical profession and lead to a devaluation of human life. Cultural perspectives on euthanasia also play a significant role in shaping public opinion on the issue. In some cultures, such as those with strong religious beliefs, euthanasia is seen as morally wrong and goes against the teachings of their faith. In contrast, other cultures may view euthanasia as a compassionate act that allows individuals to die with dignity and peace.