Ethics final project

Instructions
Return to the topic you chose in the week three assignment. Articulate a specific dilemma in a situation faced by a particular person based on that topic. The situation can be real or fictional.

• Summarize the dilemma.
• Define any needed key terms associated with the dilemma.
• Analyze the conflicts or controversies involved in the dilemma.

Revise and rewrite based on any feedback you received in your previous draft (week three). Reference and discuss any professional code of ethics relevant to your topic such as the AMA code for doctors, the ANA code for nurses, etc.  State whether and how your chosen topic involves any conflicts between professional and familial duties or conflicts between loyalty to self and loyalty to a community or nation.

What in your view is the most moral thing for that person to do in that dilemma? Why is that the most moral thing? Use moral values and logical reasoning to justify your answer

Next, apply the following:

• Aristotle’s Golden Mean to the dilemma
• Utilitarianism to the dilemma
• Natural Law ethics to the dilemma

Which of those three theories works best ethically speaking? Why that one?

Why do the other two not work or not work as well?

 Is it the same as what you said is the most moral thing earlier? Why or why not?

Use the 5 articles from your annotated bibliography to support your answers. (Additional academic scholarly research from the past 5 years can be included as well.) 

Include a reference page at the end of your paper in APA format that includes your bibliography with the annotations removed and any other sources used in your final paper.

Writing Requirements (APA format)

• Length: 4-5 pages (not including title page or references page)
• 1-inch margins
• Double spaced
• 12-point Times New Roman font
• Title page
• References page (minimum of 5 scholarly sources)

7

MORAL CONTROVERSY ON EUTHANASIA

Sjade Robinson

Ethics

03/21/2021

Abstract

The death of a terminally ill patient is referred to as euthanasia (Nicholson, 2000). It is carried out with the consent of the individual, particularly when the person is suffering from an incurable illness. In addition, the patient’s family, a court of law, or medical practitioners may make the decision to end a patient’s life. It’s worth noting, however, that the families, the court, or the doctors can only make a decision if the patient is seriously ill and unable to think or reason with current situation. Because all suicide procedures are designed in such a way that the patient’s dignity is not degraded or compromised, euthanasia is often known as mercy killing or assisted suicide. It was given the name euthanatos by the Greeks, which simply meant “simple death” (Shiflett & Carroll, 2002). Some people who are not terminally ill will sign consent for their lives to be ended through euthanasia for ethical reasons, particularly when it comes to issues of human dignity, but this is a rare occurrence. Euthanasia, on the other hand, has sparked unprecedented debate in society because it involves the death of a person. Euthanasia has also sparked unprecedented debate in society because it involves a number of factors, the most important of which are practical, religious, and ethical concerns. Furthermore, this practice appears to pose a challenge to health professionals, as it is not in accordance with medical ethics or the legal framework. In some countries such as the United Kingdom, euthanasia is prohibited, as it is considered illegal. As a result, approaches to euthanasia must be approached with caution, as they may result in legal ramifications (Nicholson, 2000). In the United Kingdom, for example, voluntary euthanasia is considered a crime that is punishable by law. Anyone who commits euthanasia on purpose faces a prison sentence. As a result, the ethical aspects of euthanasia will be critically examined in this research paper. Euthanasia appears to be causing a slew of ethical debates. This assignment evaluates these positions using the moral theories studied and highlight the views of an Ethical Egoist and that of a Social Contract Ethicist.

Ethical Egoists View on Euthanasia

Personal ethical egoism is the belief that I should act solely for my own benefit (“Philosophy 302: Ethics Ethical Egoism”). There is nothing that specifies the motivations for which others may act. The idea of universal ethical egoism is that everyone should do what is best for them as individuals, even if it harms others. A patient may be in excruciating pain, have lost bodily function, and be forced to spend the rest of their life as an invalid. Egoism may cause a person to refuse treatment because of the suffering and pain they experience daily. On an individual level, one has the right to choose whether to continue receiving treatment. “Patients have the right to informed consent and the right to refuse treatment,” according to a bill created by the American Hospital Association in 1973. (Pappas 10). The bill grants an individual the right to end their life if it is in their best interests to do so. This also aids the individual in refusing treatment, even though the family believes that keeping the individual alive is in their best interests. As a result, it informs the patient’s family of their self-interest and their desire to refuse treatment if they are ever unable to communicate. Individuals may feel that it is best to die in their own self-interest and for their own personal benefit. In 1994, the Oregon Death with Dignity Act gave terminally ill patients the right to receive a physician’s prescription for drugs that would allow them to end their own lives (“Euthanasia”). Not only does egoism cause people to want to end their lives, but there are numerous laws that allow them the right to die. Physicians’ egoism may also lead them to want to assist a patient in ending their life for their own self-interest. Physician-assisted suicide has the potential to save vital organs that could be used to save other people’s lives.

Patients who are near death experience both mental and physical anguish, as well as pain. Individuals’ egoism may lead to the patient’s family terminating treatment due to emotional and financial stress. They would believe it is in their best interests to decide whether or not to end the patient’s life. Dr. Walter Sackett introduced a right-to-die bill in 1967, allowing patients to write a living will and express their wishes for their lives and bodies.

Social Contract Ethicist’s View on Euthanasia

According to the social contract theory, individuals live together in society under the terms of an agreement that provides moral and political rules of conduct. Some people believe that if they follow a social contract, they will be able to live morally because they want to, rather than because a divine being demands it.

Passive euthanasia, in their opinion, is unethical. Medical treatment, feeding, and hydration are abruptly stopped, resulting in a slow and (potentially) torturous death. Terri Schiavo died 13 days after her tubes were removed in the last two weeks of March 2005. It is morally wrong to subject patients in PVS (Persistent Vegetative State) to such potential gratuitous suffering because it is impossible to prove that they do not suffer pain. Animals, too, should be treated with more respect. Furthermore, passive euthanasia allows us to absolve ourselves of personal responsibility for the death of the patient. The relationship between the act (of administering a lethal medication, for example) and its effects is direct and unambiguous in active euthanasia. To be classified as euthanasia, the act or omission that leads to it must have the primary and intended goal of ending life. The agent is still morally responsible if the loss of life is unintentional (a side effect) but calling his actions and omissions euthanasia would be misleading. Accepting the unintentional but foreseen repercussions of one’s actions and omissions should be distinguished from intention.

Nonetheless, this nonsense obscures the real issue: If the sanctity of life is a supreme and overriding value (“basic good”), it should undoubtedly prevent and prohibit all acts and omissions that may shorten it, even if the shortening is merely a negative side effect. This, however, is not the case. The sanctity and value of life are pitted against a slew of other moral imperatives. Even the most devout pro-life ethicist acknowledges that certain medical decisions, such as the use of strong analgesics, ultimately result in the patient’s life being cut short. However, since the resulting euthanasia is not the primary goal of the pain-relieving doctor, this is considered moral.

This topic of discussion involves a collision between personal obligations and national ones in that in countries where euthanasia is legal, the contract ethicist’s view does not allow euthanasia. They put into consideration the religious aspect of viewing God as a sole provider of life hence the same God should be the one responsible for taking back the gift of life and not anybody else. It should be recommended for the individuals involved and the state to discuss and come up with a solution that will favor both sides.

ANA Code for Nurses

The ANA Code for nurses is a concise statement of every individual who joins the nursing profession’s ethical obligations and responsibilities and a non-negotiable ethical standard for the profession. It is also a reflection of nursing’s own understanding of its social responsibility. There are 9 ANA codes that include respect to human dignity, relationship to patients, nature of health of patient, right to self-determination, and relationship with colleagues and others. In euthanasia, nurses are not part of the decision-making process, they are there to implement what has been decided by the parties involved. However, the code restricts them to a privacy of information and patient confidentiality just like for doctors. This does not in any way involve a collision between the nurses and all the other parties involved.

References

American Nurses Association. (2014).The Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretative Statements.

Dobson, K., & Galbraith, K. (2000). The Role of the Psychologist in Determining Competence for Assisted Suicide/euthanasia in the Terminally Ill. Canadian Psychology,41, 7-23.

Nicholson, R. (2000). No Painless Death yet for European Euthanasia Debate. The Hastings Center Report, 30, 3-16.

Sam Vaknin (2009). Euthanasia and the Right to Die.

https://bigthink.com/euthanasia-and-the-right-to-die

Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2018). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (9th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education.

7

MORAL CONTROVERSY ON EUTHANASIA

Sjade Robinson

Ethics

03/21/2021

Abstract

The death of a terminally ill patient is referred to as euthanasia (Nicholson, 2000). It is carried out with the consent of the individual, particularly when the person is suffering from an incurable illness. In addition, the patient’s family, a court of law, or medical practitioners may make the decision to end a patient’s life. It’s worth noting, however, that the families, the court, or the doctors can only make a decision if the patient is seriously ill and unable to think or reason with current situation. Because all suicide procedures are designed in such a way that the patient’s dignity is not degraded or compromised, euthanasia is often known as mercy killing or assisted suicide. It was given the name euthanatos by the Greeks, which simply meant “simple death” (Shiflett & Carroll, 2002). Some people who are not terminally ill will sign consent for their lives to be ended through euthanasia for ethical reasons, particularly when it comes to issues of human dignity, but this is a rare occurrence. Euthanasia, on the other hand, has sparked unprecedented debate in society because it involves the death of a person. Euthanasia has also sparked unprecedented debate in society because it involves a number of factors, the most important of which are practical, religious, and ethical concerns. Furthermore, this practice appears to pose a challenge to health professionals, as it is not in accordance with medical ethics or the legal framework. In some countries such as the United Kingdom, euthanasia is prohibited, as it is considered illegal. As a result, approaches to euthanasia must be approached with caution, as they may result in legal ramifications (Nicholson, 2000). In the United Kingdom, for example, voluntary euthanasia is considered a crime that is punishable by law. Anyone who commits euthanasia on purpose faces a prison sentence. As a result, the ethical aspects of euthanasia will be critically examined in this research paper. Euthanasia appears to be causing a slew of ethical debates. This assignment evaluates these positions using the moral theories studied and highlight the views of an Ethical Egoist and that of a Social Contract Ethicist.

Ethical Egoists View on Euthanasia

Personal ethical egoism is the belief that I should act solely for my own benefit (“Philosophy 302: Ethics Ethical Egoism”). There is nothing that specifies the motivations for which others may act. The idea of universal ethical egoism is that everyone should do what is best for them as individuals, even if it harms others. A patient may be in excruciating pain, have lost bodily function, and be forced to spend the rest of their life as an invalid. Egoism may cause a person to refuse treatment because of the suffering and pain they experience daily. On an individual level, one has the right to choose whether to continue receiving treatment. “Patients have the right to informed consent and the right to refuse treatment,” according to a bill created by the American Hospital Association in 1973. (Pappas 10). The bill grants an individual the right to end their life if it is in their best interests to do so. This also aids the individual in refusing treatment, even though the family believes that keeping the individual alive is in their best interests. As a result, it informs the patient’s family of their self-interest and their desire to refuse treatment if they are ever unable to communicate. Individuals may feel that it is best to die in their own self-interest and for their own personal benefit. In 1994, the Oregon Death with Dignity Act gave terminally ill patients the right to receive a physician’s prescription for drugs that would allow them to end their own lives (“Euthanasia”). Not only does egoism cause people to want to end their lives, but there are numerous laws that allow them the right to die. Physicians’ egoism may also lead them to want to assist a patient in ending their life for their own self-interest. Physician-assisted suicide has the potential to save vital organs that could be used to save other people’s lives.

Patients who are near death experience both mental and physical anguish, as well as pain. Individuals’ egoism may lead to the patient’s family terminating treatment due to emotional and financial stress. They would believe it is in their best interests to decide whether or not to end the patient’s life. Dr. Walter Sackett introduced a right-to-die bill in 1967, allowing patients to write a living will and express their wishes for their lives and bodies.

Social Contract Ethicist’s View on Euthanasia

According to the social contract theory, individuals live together in society under the terms of an agreement that provides moral and political rules of conduct. Some people believe that if they follow a social contract, they will be able to live morally because they want to, rather than because a divine being demands it.

Passive euthanasia, in their opinion, is unethical. Medical treatment, feeding, and hydration are abruptly stopped, resulting in a slow and (potentially) torturous death. Terri Schiavo died 13 days after her tubes were removed in the last two weeks of March 2005. It is morally wrong to subject patients in PVS (Persistent Vegetative State) to such potential gratuitous suffering because it is impossible to prove that they do not suffer pain. Animals, too, should be treated with more respect. Furthermore, passive euthanasia allows us to absolve ourselves of personal responsibility for the death of the patient. The relationship between the act (of administering a lethal medication, for example) and its effects is direct and unambiguous in active euthanasia. To be classified as euthanasia, the act or omission that leads to it must have the primary and intended goal of ending life. The agent is still morally responsible if the loss of life is unintentional (a side effect) but calling his actions and omissions euthanasia would be misleading. Accepting the unintentional but foreseen repercussions of one’s actions and omissions should be distinguished from intention.

Nonetheless, this nonsense obscures the real issue: If the sanctity of life is a supreme and overriding value (“basic good”), it should undoubtedly prevent and prohibit all acts and omissions that may shorten it, even if the shortening is merely a negative side effect. This, however, is not the case. The sanctity and value of life are pitted against a slew of other moral imperatives. Even the most devout pro-life ethicist acknowledges that certain medical decisions, such as the use of strong analgesics, ultimately result in the patient’s life being cut short. However, since the resulting euthanasia is not the primary goal of the pain-relieving doctor, this is considered moral.

This topic of discussion involves a collision between personal obligations and national ones in that in countries where euthanasia is legal, the contract ethicist’s view does not allow euthanasia. They put into consideration the religious aspect of viewing God as a sole provider of life hence the same God should be the one responsible for taking back the gift of life and not anybody else. It should be recommended for the individuals involved and the state to discuss and come up with a solution that will favor both sides.

ANA Code for Nurses

The ANA Code for nurses is a concise statement of every individual who joins the nursing profession’s ethical obligations and responsibilities and a non-negotiable ethical standard for the profession. It is also a reflection of nursing’s own understanding of its social responsibility. There are 9 ANA codes that include respect to human dignity, relationship to patients, nature of health of patient, right to self-determination, and relationship with colleagues and others. In euthanasia, nurses are not part of the decision-making process, they are there to implement what has been decided by the parties involved. However, the code restricts them to a privacy of information and patient confidentiality just like for doctors. This does not in any way involve a collision between the nurses and all the other parties involved.

References

American Nurses Association. (2014).The Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretative Statements.

Dobson, K., & Galbraith, K. (2000). The Role of the Psychologist in Determining Competence for Assisted Suicide/euthanasia in the Terminally Ill. Canadian Psychology,41, 7-23.

Nicholson, R. (2000). No Painless Death yet for European Euthanasia Debate. The Hastings Center Report, 30, 3-16.

Sam Vaknin (2009). Euthanasia and the Right to Die.

https://bigthink.com/euthanasia-and-the-right-to-die

Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2018). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (9th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education.