Euthanasia: My Stance of Opposition

Euthanasia: My Stance of opposition

Euthanasia: My stance of opposition

Introduction

This paper is a continuation of this author's previous paper of opposition "Euthanasia: An ethical dilemma", in relation to the "Groningen Protocol Ð'- Euthanasia in severely ill newborns" (Verhagen & Sauer, 2005). The determination of said author's position on the ethical dilemma of euthanasia is reexamined using the Michael McDonald ethical decision-making model (Storch, Rodney & Starzomski, 2004). Re-evaluation using aforesaid ethical framework for decision-making yields an unchanged stance of opposition. However, previous arguments of sanctity of life, protection of the vulnerable population, and the principle of nonmaleficence were adjusted. This paper reaffirms prior standpoint against euthanasia, with emphasis on relational ethics and relevance to nursing practice in Canada, using the following ethical principles: of nonmalifecence, beneficence, and justice. In addition, ethical theories of Kantianism and Communitarianism will be discussed.

Ethical principles

Nonmaleficence

Canadian nurses are committed to the patients that they serve. This principle requires nurses to act in such a manner as to avoid causing harm to patients (Burkhardt & Nathanial, 2002). Harm or injury may refer to physical harm such as pain, disability, death; or emotional harm such as causing feelings of helplessness, and isolation (CNA, 1998). Euthanasia in this case can be said to be harmful based on the principle of nonmaleficence because it causes the negative outcome of unnatural death of patients. Nurses must be aware of not causing harm especially in end-of-life treatment issues in which a patient may request the illegal act of euthanasia. Nurses must take into account personal values and those of the patient to provide the best nursing care possible that is also in accordance with Canadian law. As a consequence, this author opposes euthanasia in all circumstance based on it violation of this principle to do no harm.

Beneficence

The principle of beneficence is one that requires nurses to take action in ways that promote good to benefit patients (Thompson, Melia & Boyd, 2000). Nurses are obligated to act beneficently because acts of good are morally and legally demanded by the nursing professional role. The Canadian Nurses Association (CNA), Code of ethics for registered nurses (2002), and the Criminal Code of Canada (1985) evidence this principle. The aforementioned code and act were developed to ensure that nurses and other health care professionals operate on the principle of beneficence to ensure patient safety. Additionally, the principle of beneficence embodied by above code and act lays out the groundwork for the trust that society places in the nursing profession, and the trust that individuals place in particular nurses or health care agencies (Burkhardt & Nathanial, 2002). Euthanasia therefore is unethically based on this principle because it does not encourage good acts to benefit patient safety. In this case patient safety for end-of-life care does not entail killing the patient to end suffering. Consequently, this author opposes euthanasia because euthanasia does not promote good palliative care of patients.

Justice

The third principle of justice entails giving each person or group what he/she or they are due. It can be measured in terms of fairness, equality, need or any other criterion that is relevant to determine justice (Burkhardt & Nathanial, 2002). In nursing, this principle is supported by the Canadian Nurses Association Code of ethics for registered nurses (2002), under the value of justice. It states the following: "Nurses uphold principles of equity and fairness to assist persons in receiving a share of health services and resources proportionate to their needs and promoting social justice"(p.15). The act of euthanasia based on this principle, therefore can be considered unjust because it poses a threat to vulnerable populations since these groups are at higher risk of having their rights to health services violated. Thus, this author opposes the act of euthanasia and deems it unethically because it can lead to social injustice, where fair and equitable treatment may be withheld, or even worse lead to involuntary euthanasia of weak groups.

Ethical theories

Kantian ethics

The first argument against euthanasia is supported using the principle of nonmaleficence based on Kantian ethics. This ethical theory argues that consequences do not make an action ethically right or wrong. An act is ethical only if it originates from the good will of a rational ethical human being. What matters is the good will, the pure ethical principle upon which an individual performs his or her duty in and of itself and not merely as a means to an end that would become universal law. According to Kant, human beings must act in accordance to the aforementioned duty, which is called the categorical imperative. The act of euthanasia is considered unethical and harmful according to Kantian ethics because the act of killing in and of itself is wrong, and uses the individual as a means to an end (death to end suffering), which cannot be applied to all rational human beings to become universal law. Thus, euthanasia is considered harmful and violates the principle of nonmaleficence or