Euthanasia has been an emotive issue regarding ethics and moral grounds in the medical field since its conception. Some physicians argue that patients have the right to decide their care (Barsness et al. 90). Therefore, these physicians support euthanasia. On the other hand, other physicians argue against euthanasia on ethics and moral grounds that no one has the right to take a life. As a result, the argument against euthanasia views it as murder. My ethics and morals align with the idea of euthanasia. Physicians have a responsibility to respect a patient’s autonomy. Therefore, physicians should respect patients’ wishes when they intend to have the pain stop in terminal illness. As a physician, I value the freedom of choice for everyone. Morally, every individual should die with dignity. Diseases that warrant euthanasia are often causing turmoil to the patient without a tangible medical solution in sight. Subjecting a patient to treatments and additional therapies that do not produce a good enough outcome to reduce the severity of the disease is cruel and denies patients a dignified death.
Additionally, euthanasia is ethically and morally sane because it provides medical resources to patients who need them. Ethically, physicians are required to prioritize patient care for all their patients. Therefore, all patients have a right to have quality resources to help fight their conditions. Euthanasia helps physicians channel resources to those who want to continue living rather than leaving them with patients who have expressed no desire to continue living. Resources such as skilled medical staff, equipment, hospital beds, medication, and therapies can be directed to other patients. Lastly, euthanasia is humane and helps shorten the grief of family members and friends watching their loved ones die a slow, excruciating pain. Medical professionals who care for animals carry out euthanasia on terminally ill animals or are deemed as dangerous to others (Keown 90). This ethical principle should be transferred to humans to allow them the right to choose between life and death when the option of life does not guarantee a long, pain-free life.
Professional ethics and morals on euthanasia present arguments supporting and providing circumstances for euthanasia. As a result, the professional ethics and morals for euthanasia do not support its execution in some cases (Halloran, 34). Medical professionals use professional ethics and morals on euthanasia to navigate the issues regardless of personal ethics and morals. First, medical professionals are required to respect and uphold the human rights of a patient while administering care. Additionally, patients have autonomy over what happens to their lives. Unless incapacitated, patients have a right to make decisions about their medical plans. Medical proxies make decisions for incapacitated patients. Therefore, if a patient decides to discontinue treatment and prefers death, medical professionals are ethically required to uphold the patient wishes. Medical professionals are morally responsible for informing a patient about euthanasia, its impact, and the alternative options available for the patient. Morally, medical professionals are not required to influence patient decisions based on personal beliefs. Instead, they are tasked with presenting unbiased information objectively and obtaining informed consent (Pesut et al. 67). Obtaining informed consent requires a physician to evaluate the patient’s mental state to ensure that the permission was obtained from someone with a sound mind.
Secondly, professional ethics and morals on euthanasia dictate medical professionals practice beneficence. Beneficence dictates that medical professionals make decisions that provide more harm than good to the people involved (Halloran, 89). The morals that support beneficence include mercy and compassion. Therefore, medical professionals are morally required not to prolong the pain and suffering of a patient when they have decided on euthanasia. Professionally, euthanasia can either be active or passive. Passive euthanasia is common among medical professionals as they are ethically obligated to comply if a patient refuses to continue medication and let the disease attack the body to death. On the other hand, active euthanasia differs from the professional ethics and morals that require physicians to protect and preserve life. Physicians take an oath to protect and safeguard the lives of their patients by advocating for treatment options that prolong their lives the patients.
My ethics and morals on euthanasia provide a foundation for upholding professional ethics and morals regarding this issue. Having personal ethics and morals that guide translates to acknowledging professional ethics and morals regardless of personal beliefs. My personal ethics and morals on euthanasia side with the arguments in support of it. Therefore, they will impact how I interpret and enforce professional ethics. My personal beliefs will enable me to identify professional ethics and morals that align with my personal views and uphold them.
Additionally, having personal ethics will ensure I identify contrary professional ethics easily and ensure that they are enforced. Approaches to responding to this issue require to be handled professionally without compromising one’s integrity. I can use a strategy for such a dilemma by prioritizing a patient’s needs. Medical professionals are responsible for ensuring they care for all aspects of patient needs. Therefore, I would objectively listen to the patient’s needs, inform the patient of his options without bias and take his decision without coercing the patient to a conclusion that aligns with my personal beliefs. Lastly, I would ensure to make a decision that aligns with professional ethics and morals. Suppose the right decision for this dilemma infringes on my integrity. In that case, I will ensure to consult with other physicians or remove myself from the patient’s medical team for possible conflict of interest and bias. Although some of my personal ethics and morals on euthanasia differ from those of professional ethics, I plan to reconcile the two to ensure I effectively perform my medical obligations. My plan involves ensuring that I strictly uphold professional standards on this issue. My responsibility to the patient is professional and not personal. Therefore, in a dilemma where my professional and personal beliefs differ, decision-making will use professional ethics and morals on the issue. Remaining objective and unbiased throughout the professional decision-making process and carrying out my obligations will benefit my patients and career.
Barsness, Joseph G., et al. “US medical and surgical society position statements on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: a review.” BMC medical ethics 21.1, 2020: 1-7. www://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00556-5.
Halloran, Kathryn. “Ethics of Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide.”, 2022. www://scholarworks.merrimack.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=honors_capstones.
Keown, John. Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalisation. Cambridge University Press, 2018. www://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2r9tDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=ethics+of+euthanasia&ots=_gMOVcjGrA&sig=VDNq
TcqO0_7oHv4gAPRAPLuCUdw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=ethics%20of%20euthanasia&f=false.
Pesut, B., Greig, M., Thorne, S., Storch, J., Burgess, M., Tishelman, C., … & Janke, R., 2020. Nursing and euthanasia: A narrative review of the nursing ethics literature. Nursing ethics, 27(1), 152-167. www://doi.org/10.1177%2F0969733019845127.