Euthanasia - the Ethical Decision at Hand

Euthanasia Ð'- The Ethical Decision at Hand

The process of euthanasia is a very controversial subject. When mentioning euthanasia, most people would immediately think of the action of "killing", however the exact definition of euthanasia is a "gentle and easy death", which does not seem as negative as the connotation that euthanasia is now associated with.

In recent days, much new technological advancement in the medical field has been able to save the lives of many individuals who have been critically injured or those who have suffered from severe health problems. However, as beneficial as these procedures may be, they have created much controversy in cases involving patients of a persistent vegetative status whose lives depend on such equipment, and in cases involving the subject of euthanasia.

Today I will inform you about several different types of life-prolonging procedures, two cases, which have involved the death of an individual based on the decision of a legal guardian, family member, or court decision that at some point have been considered acts of non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia, and the ethical justifications as well as the use of advanced care directives, which can help in avoiding euthanasia.

Many of us never want to face the fact that at some point in our lives we may face the possibility of being critically injured or possibly suffer from health problems or disease. However, it could happen to anyone. That is why it is extremely important for everyone to understand the certain life-prolonging procedures that could possibly be used in order to save a life. If we understand them now and decide whether or not we would want them to be used on ourselves, we could eliminate future controversy. The right to control your medical care is one of the most fundamental rights you have. No one should be forced to endure medical treatment that they do not want.

First, I will discuss the various types of life-prolonging procedures that are commonly used in medical emergencies and procedures today. Then, I will explain two controversial court cases that have involved the lives of two individuals whose destinies were placed in the hands of other individuals.

A Life-Prolonging Procedure is any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention that uses mechanical or other artificial means to sustain, restore, or supplant a vital function. These procedures may include the administration of blood or blood products, cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR), diagnostic tests, dialysis, antibiotics, surgery, feeding tube, or a respirator

However, it is important to understand that the administration of life-prolonging medical procedures may result in only a precarious and burdensome existence. The progression of many health and injury conditions leads to two of the most common decisions regarding life-prolonging procedures: whether to use feeding tubes, and whether to used a ventilator

Feeding Tubes are required when a chronically ill person can no longer chew and swallow his or her food. A naso-gastric tube, which is inserted through the nose and down the esophagus to the stomach, allows the patient to receive liquid nutrition. A gastric tube is used when swallowing difficulties arise. Surgery is required to insert the tube directly through the front of the belly into the stomach and the patient then receives all or most of his/her nutrition through frequent feedings throughout the day. This feeding can be done by hand using a syringe or by using a machine that will drip the liquid through the tube into the stomach. They need to be replaced every 6 months through surgical procedure. They help prevent illness and prolong life. However, sometimes it can be the only thing keeping someone alive.

Ventilator or Respirator are used when someone can no longer breathe on his or her own. It is a machine that helps a person to breathe. It requires a tube down a person's throat or through a tracheotomy (hole in the throat). When a person is put on a ventilator, it is not always known ahead of time whether is will be for a short or long term. If a person is too weak or their illness is so progressed, the patient then faces the possibility of remaining on the machine for the rest of his or her life.

CPR is a combination of rescue breathing (mouth-to-mouth resuscitation) and chest compressions. If a child isn't breathing or circulating blood adequately, CPR can restore circulation of oxygen-rich blood to the brain. Without oxygen, permanent brain damage or death can occur in less than 8 minutes. It should only be performed when a person isn't breathing or circulating blood adequately.

A person who is in a persistent vegetative state loses the brain matter that provides the physiological basis needed to have certain kinds of experience. They do not have any form of self-awareness. Although there are benefits from these modern techniques, the existence of such techniques presents doctors, patients and their families with dilemmas. Dilemmas arise where patients are in a permanent vegetative state or similar condition and forms of life support are used to sustain life artificially for many years with little or no hope of recovery. If people in a persistent vegetative state "have no experiences at all, and can never again, their lives have no intrinsic value. Their life's journey has come to an end. They are biologically alive, but not biographically" (Singer 192). Also, family members or doctors may simply prolong the dying process and cause unnecessary distress to the patient.

In 1990 a woman named Nancy Cruzan was in a car crash in the state of Missouri that left her in a persistent vegetative state. Her brain did not get oxygen for many minutes before the paramedics arrived, and was so damaged that doctors said she could not possibly ever think or feel again. In this case, the Supreme Court decided the fate of Nancy's life, and decided to keep her alive by a feeding tube despite the wishes of her family. Her parents fought for a decade to have her feeding tube removed and finally won their case and had the feeding tubes withdrawn. This is a case of non-voluntary euthanasia, as Nancy never had a chance to directly decide to be withdrawn from a feeding tube; her parents decided on her behalf. This case sparked many Americans to consider the signing of a living will document.

On March 18th, the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding/hydration tube sparked a national uproar. On February 25, 1990 she was the apparent victim of a heart attack. Her heart had stopped, and blood had failed to flow into her brain for about 10 minutes. She was in a coma for weeks, and when she emerged doctors said she had suffered irreversible brain damage. The called