Navigating the Ethical Dilemma of Euthanasia: Patient Autonomy vs. Professional Obligations

Abstract

To date, euthanasia has never been settled, and conflicts surrounding it have never been sorted. In countries like Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg, where euthanasia is legal, many people have opted for the service. Some people are usually ready to die to save them the agony of pain and suffering. On the other hand, some patients may be incapacitated to the extent that they may not be able to make such decisions, and their next of kin are forced to make the decisions for them. But it is not an easy task, especially in situations that may incorporate a non-supporter of euthanasia. Take an example of a terminally ill person who would want the euthanasia service. The doctors would like to fulfill the withes of the terminally ill patient. But the head of the doctors is a religious person who believes that euthanasia is just murder in camouflage. The head doctor believes in preserving life and argues that only the creator of humans has a right to end that life. Therefore, the suffering patient must be left to die naturally, and no assisted death should be done on the patient. With this, the doctors are ethically bound by responsibilities and respect for their seniors. Even if they want to fulfill the patient’s wishes, they must listen to their superior says. Either the junior doctors could aid the patient is having a peaceful death behind their superior's back or let the patient suffer to the last day. Else, the junior doctor would recommend someone who would fulfill the family and the patient’s wishes. In such a scenario, the case would cause a professional conflict and also self-conflict. In such an instance, what would be the best thing to do? If one does not have value for life, there is surely no need to prolong it. The desire of the patient and the family should be fulfilled. In most instances, terminal illnesses tend to leave the families in a financial constraint besides the pain and suffering of the affected. Furthermore, not all people share the same religious ideologies. Abakare (2021) asked, "what is one supposed to do in cases where a terminally ill patient wishes to terminate his or her life to ease the mental turmoil and financial struggle of the family members as well as end the suffering they might undergoing" the best thing to do is to do the right thing. The government should consider all people's beliefs and try to come up with a lasting solution. People should not be left to suffer unnecessarily, and there is a possibility of a lasting solution. As per Dintcho (2020), euthanasia should be morally and legally permissible. Special Situations call for certain actions. If euthanasia is legalized, it could be possible to have it defined so that it could be done n the right manner. Through the proper articulation of the law, euthanasia could be done safely and appropriately (Gómez-Vírseda, 2020). The law ought to look at all cases of illness and the conditions under which the service could be rendered. For instance, people with mental illness could not be in sound mind when making personal decisions regarding euthanasia. According to Olie and Courtet (2019), some mental conditions are not permanent, and such should be taken very seriously. Patients who may have wished euthanasia done on them and later healed said that it was a good thing that euthanasia was not administered on them. The bottom line is in line with Oyarce (2018) that voluntary euthanasia should be legalized. In the case of the dilemma discussed herein, it could only be easier to make these decisions if the law was specific. A person who is not delighted in life and life is focused on pain and agony may be relieved by assisted death (Oyarce, 2018) because one of living is being happy. Oyarce (2018) asked, “Why should we keep a person alive if they can no longer have a life worth valuing”? A doctor feels good when positive results are achieved. In the case discussed earlier, it would be good for the doctors to fulfill the patient's desires as long as everyone is contented with the act. If the head of the doctors feels otherwise, it would be good to recommend the family a doctor who could help them ease the pain of the patient. In line with the professional code of ethics, the patient can refuse or choose their treatment....