Voluntary Active Euthanasia in Healthcare Ethics

Voluntary active euthanasia is a significant ethical issue discussed all over the world for many years. According to Brock, there are two ethical values that uphold voluntary active euthanasia, including autonomy and beneficence (Vaughn, 2016). The principle of autonomy implies that people’s choice to end their lives should be respected as long as it does not harm others, which is seen as the strongest point of proponents of voluntary active suicide (Vaughn, 2016).

The principle of beneficence, or mercy, states that if a doctor is in power to relieve the unbearable suffering of another, a doctor should do so (Vaughn, 2016). These two principles can be applied to justify euthanasia of terminally ill patients, as assisted suicide of terminally ill patients does not harm them, which is crucial for the non-maleficence principle.

Autonomy and beneficence do not justify voluntary active euthanasia of non-terminally ill patients for several reasons. The primary reason is that such euthanasia is against the non-maleficence principle. The fact that a doctor kills a patient implies that a doctor harms a patient, which is unacceptable, according to the principle of non-maleficence (Vaughn, 2016). Some skeptics say that death may not be a harm, as “if her pain is unbearable and untreatable, and she makes an autonomous request to die, then active euthanasia may be a blessing” (Vaughn, 2016, p. 633). Such logic is dangerous, as it does not encourage to develop new methods of treatment to reduce pain. Instead, governments should develop better palliative care (O’Gara, 2015).

Another problem with legalizing voluntary active euthanasia is the danger of allowing people having treatable psychological conditions to die, as “there is no way for healthcare professionals to measure another person’s mental suffering to decide if they should receive euthanasia” (O’Gara, 2015, para. 8). Moreover, Vaughn (2016) states that allowing active voluntary euthanasia may lead to rapid growth of involuntary active euthanasia, as “physicians or families will start pushing unwilling or unsure patients toward assisted suicide” (p. 633). Thus, I believe that actively assisted euthanasia should not be allowed for non-terminally ill patients.

References

O’Gara, E. (2015). Physically healthy 24-year-old granted right to die in Belgium. Newsweek. Web.

Vaughn, L. (2016). Bioethics: Principles, Issues, and Cases (3d ed.). oxford University Press.

Cite this paper

Select style

Reference

NursingBird. (2023, August 31). Voluntary Active Euthanasia in Healthcare Ethics. https://nursingbird.com/voluntary-active-euthanasia-in-healthcare-ethics/

Work Cited

"Voluntary Active Euthanasia in Healthcare Ethics." NursingBird, 31 Aug. 2023, nursingbird.com/voluntary-active-euthanasia-in-healthcare-ethics/.

References

NursingBird. (2023) 'Voluntary Active Euthanasia in Healthcare Ethics'. 31 August.

References

NursingBird. 2023. "Voluntary Active Euthanasia in Healthcare Ethics." August 31, 2023. https://nursingbird.com/voluntary-active-euthanasia-in-healthcare-ethics/.

1. NursingBird. "Voluntary Active Euthanasia in Healthcare Ethics." August 31, 2023. https://nursingbird.com/voluntary-active-euthanasia-in-healthcare-ethics/.


Bibliography


NursingBird. "Voluntary Active Euthanasia in Healthcare Ethics." August 31, 2023. https://nursingbird.com/voluntary-active-euthanasia-in-healthcare-ethics/.