Euthanasia

Euthanasia is the deliberate taking of a person's life who has endured significant suffering due to illness or personal choice with the goal of easing that person's pain and suffering. It is typically done so that the individual passes away quietly, gently, slowly, and painlessly (Chao, Chan & Chan, 2002). Additionally, euthanasia typically refers to euthanasia performed with the patient's agreement, in which the patient expresses a desire to pass away and is supported by another person in carrying out the act of euthanasia. This can be done by passive or active euthanasia (Brody, 1975). Forms of Euthanasia

Active euthanasia- this is where a person is responsible for and directly causes death of a patient. He may not literary kill but his own “actions” may cause the death of the patient. This can either mean the deliberate overdose or injection to a patient that will make him die.

Passive euthanasia – this form of euthanasia is caused by “omission” of a drug or a necessary life holding equipment or tool which the patient depends on to survive. This can either mean withholding or withdrawing. Withholding in this case could mean that the doctor may decide not to do an operation or administer any drug which would have helped the patient to at least extend his life. Withdrawing could mean switching off the life support machines or stopping to administer drugs so that the patient just dies of their disease.

Voluntary and involuntary euthanasia –in this case the patient is willing to die due to excess suffering caused by illness or personal life reasons. Such cases could include, refusing to eat, asking for medical treatment to be stopped so he/she may just die or requests the machines to be switched off. The patient in this case requests to die. Involuntary euthanasia in this case occurs when the patient chooses to live but still he gets killed it wasn’t the will of the patient but he was to be killed for his own benefit. In most cases this is treated as murder.

Indirect euthanasia – this involves the use of a drug meant to reduce pain which is overdosed and speeds up death. The primary intention in this case is not death, so morally it’s acceptable.

Assisted suicide – this is where a person willing to die is assisted to die upon his own request (Cohen, 1994).

The ethical theory of utilitarianism states that action that maximizes utility is the best action, this can be in terms of well-being of a person, minus any suffering or ill feeling of any other person involved in the action. All interest are equally considered in this ethical theory (Drapper, 1998). Pain and pleasure are two sovereign masters that nature has placed to governance mankind. This means that ethic principles which disapproves or approves an action whose interest is in question, any action whatsoever, and therefore not only a private individual’s action, but of every government measure (Smart & Williams, 2003). According to utilitarian ethical doctrine, a virtue is not originally and naturally part of the end, but there is a capability of becoming so and it has become so for those who love it disinteresting and has been cherished and desired, this is a part of their happiness and not as a means to their happiness (Slote, 2005).

















Euthanasia in Hong Kong



Statistics of how hong kong people approach euthanasia.

Important ethical issues have been raised by health care professional concerning the responsibilities of nurses and their professional duties when caring for the terminal ill patients in this case we are mostly focusing on Hong Kong. These death and life issues affect and relate directly to the responsibilities and the professional duties as advocates of the patients and as formal caregivers (Adams, 1976).











What the people think of euthanasia and how the doctor’s attitude is towards the events

We look at an article by Annemarie Evans on bbc news in Hong Kong covering a story of a man who chooses to die by he is forced to go home. Tand Siu-pun who was a gymnastic athlete back in 1991 was busy rehearsing when things fell apart. He accidentally fell on practice and injured his spine which cost him his career by getting paralyzed neck downwards. He signed an appeal to let him die to the chief executive and various legislators. He was released from hospital after 19years. This story was a major spread in Hong Kong and the whole world. Since in Hong Kong assisted suicide is illegal, his appeal was that to be more concerning in his situation. Donations came from all over the city from the village peasants to the wealthy to finance his father to meet transportation costs to and fro hospital. It’s of great concern from his condition that the country administration (government) intervened to invest in modern technology to enable patients such (Robert, 2005).

From a debate column by Mandie Ho Kit-Man, we get several of views of what people think of euthanasia in Hong Kong. Arguments on morals here apply;

This should be legalized because life is how much meaningful it means to you not how much one live, and the medicine world is to be blamed. The new medicine technology has corrupted human mind and body. When there is no cure death is inevitable, either way we are not able to tell what the patient is going through and what he is feeling so it should be the patient’s right to choose what he/she wants with his/her life due to human rights to life and choices, Thomas Li Chak-Leung argues that there is no place ever in the Hong Kongs law where its written that medical medicine is compulsory to him for example taking psychotic patients in their case most of them end up taking down the treatments because they think in their state they are ok which is not true. Besides, we should always learn to respect other people’s decisions and as far as affordability is concerned, we should be considerate (Gurney, 2004).

Looking at Thomas Li Chak-Leung from St. Joseph’s College, no euthanasia should be allowed in Hong Kong as it is defined as mercy killing. Only doctors should decide which patients should get euthanasia. Legalizing it will make the doctors overworked since they will have a hard time trying to determine which patient to be given euthanasia and which medicine should be prescribed for them. To him he feels giving the doctor the right to decide whom to kill is outrageous (Brody, 2009).

Reason why euthanasia won’t work in Hong Kong

By faith majority of different religions believe at one point in nature we were created. There is only one Supreme Being who could take life. Giving a doctor such privileges will make them arrogant and easy killers to some extent as we live in a world where anything could happen and no one could be trusted (Harris, 2001). Corruption is everywhere and with such privileges, he could be easily be bribed and kill a patient whom he is not supposed to kill. We all value life and have a reason and right to live. Morally it is not right to take someone’s life just because he is suffering, in a way or the other there are vast advancements in technology especially in China where medicine and technology keep advancing daily and they could be a perfect alternative to euthanasia (Gay, 2002). We live in a society with financial constraints there are diseases and situations which could trigger the vice for example, cancer, terminal illness and disability. The patients may feel in a way a burden to their families. In most cases patients make such decisions out of desperacy due to depression which make his live worthless of living (Hamilton, 2015).

Additionally, the society can be placed in a very slippery slope if euthanasia is legalized and this can lead to consequences that are not acceptable at all. In fact, Hamilton states that in 2015, fear of burdening family members and loss of dignity is the reason why most people sought euthanasia and it’s not because of the pain they are feeling.

Taking on the utilitarian argument approach, people have rights to their own lives and can decide on what’s good and bad to us, we can decide on our own. A patient may decide to feel pain for a short time and die too soon. He has the sovereignty to decide what’s good for his body and when he chooses to die. Arguably according to singer, we find that morally it is wrong to randomly kill patients but for the utilitarian rule we find that patients would feel excited and could possibly end up doing what’s not right simply because they are aware that on a very point their lives will soon end. The patients feel that what they are going to do i.e. kill or request to be killed will be of benefit to the larger population but will hurt a few people. Eventually he will die by now the doctor is in amoral dilemma. He doesn’t want to actively kill the patient but thinks otherwise. Maybe in the next dosage, he may decide to withdraw the dosage or under administer the dosage with an intention to let the patient die slowly. He hasn’t involved in any active euthanasia but instead engaged in a passive one (Smart, 2003)

Legal view of euthanasia

According to the code of professional Conduct for the Guidance of Registered Medical Council of Hong Kong euthanasia is defined as the direct intentional killing of a person in a medical scenario. The main government agenda in this case is to define cases to which the medical facility is questioned if it knows the numbers of requests from euthanasia from the members of public, if the concerned authorities have conducted ant study in the past three years on legalization on criteria of performing euthanasia. From the president’s feedback, he is seen arguing on the case which he says he sees withholding the life-sustaining treatment for the terminally ill and euthanasia as two different concepts. According to the code, withholding or with holding of an artificial life support procedure for any terminally ill patient is not euthanasia (Harris, 2001). If withholding or withdrawing for the benefit of the patient or the family according to their wish is acceptable. Additionally, the legal view of euthanasia according to Chao et al has raised a lot of contentious issues because as it is defined in Hong Kong, the direct intentional of killing a person as part of medical care being given to him (Smatt, 2009).

Conclusion

Euthanasia can be both are treated as a method to either help the patient or the family. Considering a patient who has been terminally ill for over three years in a hospital bed I support of the machines to help him live. He has a determination that one day he will be able to get well, on the other hand the family may see it reliability due to financial expenses and the time heavily spent on him. The patient may be forced to accept two facts, to continue living or to die in an effort to make the family be at piece. In real sense in his mind he doesn’t want to either way accept that he will die or has to die, but he is forced to accept that he has to in order for his family to rest and save on the financial stress. In these harsh economic times the patient finds that the only way he can save the family from having more and extreme financial constrains is by requesting the doctors to administer euthanasia (Cohen, 1994).

It should not be legalizing as it’s against humanity and disrespects the rights to life by the Chinese people and the whole world. Mostly doctors makes the decision of which patients should get euthanasia in cases of the terminally ill patients, the burden of doctors will increase if euthanasia is legalized in Hong Kong. Doctors already have a work load to prescribe the right medicine and make diagnosis on patients, this is outrageous since it’s like telling them to make a decision on which patients should or should not die. Additionally, family members will also be involved directly or indirectly in making the euthanasia decision and this can cause trauma and additionally this negative thought can cause breakdown which can also lead to depression. No one has a right to take another person’s life, death is not reversible and there is no second chance to reverse the decision. I other words there is no turning back. Terminal illnesses and incurable diseases may seem incurable but there great advancement in medical technology, soon there will be a cure for those incurable diseases, then why carry out euthanasia and there will be a cure? We would never know if the patient might have lived full and happy life despite the illness and may be the patient’s unexpected recovery was around the corner. In conclusion, everyone should live according to ability as nature has it and only God has the right to take one’s life since he is he give of life (Manninen, 2006).





References

Adams, Robert Merrihew (August 1976). "Motive Utilitarianism". The Journal of Philosophy. 73 (14): 467.

Brody, Baruch (1975). "Voluntary Euthanasia and the Law". In Kohl, Marvin. Beneficent Euthanasia. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. p. 94, quoted in Beauchamp & Davidson (1979), p 295.

Brody, Shlomo (19 November 2009). "Ask the Rabbi: 'Passive euthanasia'". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 6 January 2012.

Cohen, Jonathan (1994). "Attitudes toward Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia among Physicians in Washington State". The New England Journal of Medicine (331): 89–94.

Chao DV, Chan NY, Chan WY. Euthanasia revisited. Fam Pract 2002; 19: 128-34

Draper, Heather (1998). "Euthanasia". In Chadwick, Ruth. Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics. 2. Academic Press. p. 176.

Gay, John (2002). "Concerning the Fundamental Principle of Virtue or Morality". In Schneewind, J. B. Moral Philosophy from Montaigne to Kant. Cambridge University Press. 

Gurney, Edward (2004). "Is There a Right to Die – A Study of the Law of Euthanasia". Cumberland-Samford Law Review. 3: 237.

Hamilton, Graeme (December 10, 2015). "Is it euthanasia or assisted suicide? Quebec's end-of-life care law explained". National Post. Toronto, Ontario. Retrieved January 5, 2016.

 Harris, NM. (Oct 2001). "The euthanasia debate". J R Army Med Corps. 147 (3): 367–70.

Manninen BA. A case for justified non-voluntary active euthanasia, “exploring the ethics of the Groningen Protocol.” J Med Ethics 2006; 32: 64 3-51.

Robert Merrihew Adams, Motive Utilitarianism, The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 73, No. 14, On Motives and Morals (12 August 2005), pp. 467–81

 Slote, Michael (2005). "The Main Issue between Unitarianism and Virtue Ethics". From Morality to Virtue. Oxford University Press.

Smart, J.J.C.; Williams, Bernard (January 2003). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press. p. 42.

Smartt, Ursula (2009). "Euthanasia and the Law". Criminal Law & Justice Weekly. 173 (7): 100.