hello, attached is the past paper (part 1) and the current assignment.
Ethics of Euthanasia in the terminally ill patient
Name
University
NR 442: Community Health
Professor
Date
Ethics of Euthanasia in the terminally ill patient
According to Persson et al. (2020), euthanasia is a complex topic when considering the dilemma and professional aspects of the act. It involves terminating an individual’s life to eliminate their suffering; for euthanasia to occur, the patient or caregivers should support the act, especially when the patient is highly suffering or in pain. Euthanasia is supported by those believing that people should make decisions regarding their lives. In the medical profession, practitioners help patients and caregivers to make informed decisions about their lives, including when ending life is the best option. From a moral perspective, euthanasia involves killing people, which is wrong since human life is unique, and death can be avoided by providing quality care. This paper will review the ethical perspective of euthanasia and arguments for critically ill patients.
Clinical question
Terminally ill patients are severe emotional, mental, and physical suffering; continuous care to such patients increases suffering, healthcare costs, and low quality of life. An example, an individual with stage four cancer that has emphasized all body parts is exposed to pain and suffering due to medication used, medical operations, and care required. Such patients advocate for euthanasia, where their lives are ended with dignity, and their suffering is reduced drastically. Euthanasia is often justifiable since later-stage cancer is incurable and there is a lot of distress.
For medical professionals, euthanasia poses an ethical dilemma since the purpose of the healthcare industry is to protect lives and eliminate suffering. On the other hand, patient autonomy is among the healthcare pillars since people have the right to decide when they should die. Critics argue euthanasia is used when the healthcare systems are compromised since professionals should do everything possible to prevent lives. Euthanasia leads to loss of lives which is against healthcare goals; the vulnerable population life poor are more likely to suffer if they cannot afford hefty healthcare costs they opt for death.
The significance of the problem is the disconnection between the aims of the healthcare industry and ethics. Healthcare practitioners are supposed to eliminate suffering and promote quality of life; however, death is not the ultimate solution to the current healthcare issues in the country. Continued euthanasia use for terminally ill patients will reduce the efficiency of healthcare facilities and research. For example, if covid19 cure was killing the patients to eliminate their suffering, the vaccine would not get produced. Therefore, death from stage four cancer solution does not mean the problem is solved; people require more research and new healthcare approaches to save lives. According to Penn Medicine, between .3 and 4.5 deaths in US facilities occur due to euthanasia, especially for cancer patients.
The PICOT question is “For terminally ill patients (P), how to make the application of euthanasia (I) different than offering a palliative care© without making euthanasia available to improve the quality of life and eliminate pain (O) within the life-ending duration (T).
This paper aims to investigate the role of palliative care, unlike the euthanasia option, to ensure ethics in healthcare are considered, especially in promoting and restoring quality of life. The application of euthanasia is a short-term solution that is not applicable in all situations.
Levels of evidence
The question asked is on the role of palliate care, unlike the euthanasia option that leads to losing lives. Healthcare workers should offer continuous care to patients, unlike offering them a cheaper alternative that involves ending lives. Modern medicine and technology have been invented to improve people’s life and lower the effort required when completing jobs. With euthanasia, hard work and regard for safety are ignored, which has negative impacts on the efforts of historical healthcare scientists. The qualitative study will provide the evidence to complete the research questions. The quantitative approach involves an examination of the opinion, experiences, and feelings of terminally ill patients and caregivers before euthanasia. To address the ethical dilemma, a quantitative study will be used to understand palliative care perspectives and their significance in improving the quality of life.
Search Strategy
Some search terms used include terminally ill, patient’s consent, euthanasia, critically ill patients, death decision for patients, and palliative care. During the search process, the databases used to obtain information includes the Cochrane Library, PubMed site, and CU library database. The PubMed library provided results on ethics in the decision-making process; the CU database was about the role of palliative care for terminally ill patients. Cochrane Library provided mixed results of studies from previous authors regarding the part of palliative care and why patients prefer euthanasia. The refinement strategies included reducing the limit to six years, using English-only studies, and using filters to get studies only conducted in the US.
Relevant articles
The first study by Pesut et al. (2020) explains the role of medical assistance for critically ill patients. Canada was the first nation to legalize the process in 2016, and other countries have adopted it to reduce patients’ suffering, especially during terminal illness. Authors support the process since it is painless and used to address incurable conditions. The second study by Gómez-Vírseda & Gastmans (2022) is about whether euthanasia can be used to address dementia cases which is a clinical issue since healthcare practitioners provide care and restore well-being which is against ending a patient’s life. On the other hand, patients have the right to determine when to die in dignity, especially when extensive suffering and conditions are irreversible.
Conclusion
In conclusion, euthanasia poses an ethical dilemma for healthcare practitioners since the role of the healthcare industry is protecting life and eliminating pain and suffering in a patient’s life. However, patients have the right to determine when they should die in dignity, especially in critical conditions where healthcare cannot be restored. Experts consider euthanasia a shortcut that leads to the loss of lives; At the same time, traditional scientists strived through research to protect health; euthanasia will lead to laziness and more deaths that could have been avoided or delayed through palliative care.
References
Gómez-Vírseda, C., & Gastmans, C. (2022). Euthanasia in persons with advanced dementia: a dignity-enhancing care approach. Journal of Medical Ethics, 48(11), 907-914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107308
Persson, K., Selter, F., Neitzke, G., & Kunzmann, P. (2020). Philosophy of a “good death” in small animals and consequences for euthanasia in animal law and veterinary practice. Animals, 10(1), 124. https://www.mdpi.com/616034
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. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0969733019845127
