Question

The word "euthanasia" draws its roots from Greek meaning "good death." As it is used in this discussion, it means "the act of ending the life of a person suffering from either a terminal illness, or an incurable disease." The American Medical Association is against physicians assisting in euthanasia. There is currently only one state in the US that allows for euthanasia, and that is Oregon, where in 1997, the "Death With Dignity Act" went into effect. Euthanasia advocates stress that it should be allowed as an extension of a person's autonomy. Those who are against euthanasia often say that it can lead to the devaluation of human life, and to a slippery slope in which the old and disabled will be killed on the whims of healthy people. We examined one case and the Oregon law to view the ethics of euthanasia.

A woman was diagnosed with motor neurone disease (the same
disease that Stephen Hawking has) 5 years ago. This is a condition that destroys motor nerves, making control of movement impossible, while the mind is virtually unaffected. People with motor neurone disease normally die within 4 years of diagnosis from suffocation due to the inability of the inspiratory muscles to contract. The woman's condition has steadily declined. She is not expected to live through the month, and is worried about the pain that she will face in her final hours. She asks her doctor to give her diamorphine for pain if she begins to suffocate or choke. This will lessen her pain, but it will also hasten her death. About a week later, she falls very ill, and is having trouble breathing.

Questions for Case # 6
•   Does she have a right to make this choice, especially in view of the fact that she will be dead in a short while (say six hours)? Is this choice an extension of her autonomy?
•   Is the short amount of time she has to live ethically relevant? Is there an ethical difference between her dying in 6 hours and dying in a week? What about a year, and how do you draw this distinction?
•   Is the right for a patient's self-determination powerful enough to create obligations on the part of others to aid her so that she can exercise her rights? She clearly cannot kill herself. She can't move, but should someone be forced to help her, or to find someone to help her?
•   Should the money used to care for this woman be taken into account, when she is being helped? Do you think that legalizing euthanasia could create conflicts of interest for the patient/ or the doctor? Will people feel that they need to end their lives earlier to save money?
•   If you were the physician, what would you do? Note: if you would pass her off to another doctor knowing he or she would do it, does this free you from you ethical obligations?

Answer 1

1. Yes, she has the right to make this choice, especially in view of the fact that she will be dead in a short while and it is an extension of her autonomy because she is being asked to decide on what to do.

2. No, the short amount of time she has to live is not ethically relevant because there might be chances that she may live few longer duration with the medications and care .Yes there is an ethical difference between her dying in 6 hours and dying in a week .

3. Yes, the right of a patient's self-determination is powerful enough to create obligations on the part of others to aid her so that she can exercise her rights because she cannot kill herself ,she has to find someone to help her.

4. No, according to me the money should not be taken into account because the money is given here to take care of her not for helping her to die . The money which is applicable till how much care she got should be taken after that no money should be taken from her . Legalization of euthanasia will create conflict of interest for the patients and also for the doctors ,because not everyone is in favour of this . Yes people may feel that it's better to end the life than wasting money in which no outcome is possible.