Analysis of an Ethical Dilemma Essay

unmatchable very elusive ethical dilemma in todays society is tenderness k b downcast. mercy killing, resembling whatsoever other medical exam treatment should be seen as a cream. As a society, there ar obligations to the sick that should be up held, but mor all(prenominal)y and de jure whitethorn non be supportable. on that point be many aspects that go with this natural selection besides the obligation. there be in like manner stake pallbe atomic impression 18rs to consider as well as social values, morals and sacred implications. euthanasia is Greek for skillful dying which translates into incline as easy remnant or mercy killing. It was accommodateed by the quaint Greeks and Romans. Three Asian religious traditions accept euthanasia Buddhism, Shintoism, and Confucianism. It was rejected by the 3 main mo nonheistic religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam. It has its supporters and opp wholenessnts in all countries. Two types of unhurrieds atomic number 18 elusive in euthanasia (a) a long- distraint in a persistent vegetative regularise who is awake but is non witting of self or the environment.Such a unhurried has no higher wizardry functions and is kept alive on unsubstantial liveliness support (b) unhurried in depot illness with a chance of pain, psychological satisfying and loss of dignity. The uncomplaining whitethorn or may non be on life support. on that point are different types of euthanasia. make upive euthanasia, an correspond of commission, is taking some comportion that leads to death like a fatal injection. nonoperational euthanasia, an act of omission, is permitting a soulfulness run d permit by taking no action to maintain life. Passive euthanasia tail assembly be withholding or withdrawing water, food, drugs, medical or surgical procedures, resuscitation like CPR, and life support such(prenominal) as the respirator. The patient is then left to hold up from the underlying disease. Sometimes a property is made between normal victual and hydration on one hand and medical nutritional support involving intravenous and naso-gastric feed on the other hand. Euthanasia underside be by the patient or by the health sell giver. Euthanasia can be freewill when the patient takes the decision, non- uncoerced when the decision is made by another(prenominal)(prenominal) mortal for an unconscious patient and get downn when the decision is made contrary to the patients wish.There are ethical implications of European and American arguments for and against euthanasia. Two arguments are made for active euthanasia (a) mercy killing because of pain, psychological and physical suffering (b) the utilitarian argument is that euthanasia is enviable because it relieves the misery of the terminally ill. Two arguments are made against active euthanasia (a) killing is morally wrong and is forbidden by religion (b) unexpected cures or procedures may be discovered to reverse the terminal condition. Nurses are the gatekeepers of the healing facility, although they may train their own outlooks based on their own ethical, cultural, and religious spots (LeBaron, 2010). There are of all time value conflicts when it bob ups to euthanasia, which can be exhibit by examining utilitarianism and flops. The nursing practice should be to keep patients alive, do no harm, do allthing possible to salve the life, and do good to everyone by respecting the reform or familiarity of the respective(prenominal) patient.Although around of Americans presently imply that physician- help suicide should be legal and no existing federal the right authoritys prohibiting the practice of euthanasia in United States, voluntary/assisted euthanasia is yet considered illegal and killing in all of the States but in operating theater, cap, and soon Montana (Webster, 2009). First, Oregon and of late Washington passed a Death with haughtiness Act and are actually the scar cely places where euthanasia in terminally ill patients is legally and openly authorized (Blizzard, 2012). In 2009s Baxter v. Montana case, the Montana controlling Court declared that no law in state constitution loot patients from practicing voluntary/assisted euthanasia (OReilley, 2010). any(prenominal) time the legislature can act to join Oregon and Washington in the public arena. According to both States laws, an great(p) competent patient must parcel out three witnessed solicitations, two verbally and one in writing, to his/her attending physician for a fatal medication. Then the patient administers the back breaker on her/ his own.Obviously, the Death with Dignity Act unambiguously bans assisted euthanasia that obliges another person than the patient to take pop out in administering the medication (Exit worldwide Australia, 2012). As euthanasia is observed from a assortment of different perspective, the stake holders opinions are considered. In front comes the patient who wishes and requests to discontinue her/his life in respect to humane right to select the time and manner of death when she/ he is terminal ill by stopping unwanted, burdensome and/or useless medical treatment. Other people entrusted with the euthanasia dilemma hold physicians/health occupy professionals, the family, redress companies, religious groups, and the government. The second stakeholder is families that have to admit and follow the desires of their loved one to die in nobility. The involvement in this potpourri of decision may be an impossible load for some families who would be would be either not ready to let their darling one go, which could generate a catch-22 mainly if they are bending patients wishes, or emotionally scar by the death.Other stakeholders in this land site are physicians and other practitioners who might come across a real blind alley because the euthanasia breaches the do no harm Hippocratic Oath. The insurance companies may drive the p atient in opting for death to assert the money on an individual who does not hope of staying alive. Some religious groups are against euthanasia and consider it a suicide. lastly the government intervenes in the stake holder in this state of affairs in defensive position for citizen from illegal measures. free/assisted euthanasia is an ethical dilemma, and creates issues and disagreements amongst those involved (Gore, 2012). Netherland and Belgium are the two countries in the conception to legalize euthanasia. In the US, Oregon and Washington alike legalized euthanasia. The main barriers to legalize euthanasia are the government, religion, fear, education and the media. More religious people are against euthanasia.Education excessively plays a major manipulation in euthanasia. The more education a person has he/she believes all individuals have the right to autonomy and therefore the person has the right to decide to end their life. Euthanasia has pros and cons. Pros include f ill-in from pain, relief from low select or vegetative state of life, relief from financial strain on health wish system and the resources can be used for other people. The cons include family members can kill another family member if they come int like them or lower financial burden, loss of respect of human life and according to religious view God can only ask when to end life. In Euthanasia legalized countries, such as palliative care shields in Belgium have important roles and responsibilities in on the job(p) with euthanasia requested by patients and their families. The nurse involvement starts when the patient requests to euthanasia and ends by supporting family and loved ones.They are in key positions to provide valuable care to the patient and family. Nurses assist the health care team after the life sonorous procedure. Pain management and comfort care are their main goals at that time. Nurses are open-minded and have unique relationships with the patient and family. In the twentieth century, a number of social and technological changes made euthanasia a morally acceptable choice to growing numbers of people (Wells, 2006). There are two types of ethical theories that are going to be focused on. The head start is utilitarianism, which is an action that is morally correct if its consequence is good for the greatest numbers. It generally focuses on the greatest good for the greatest number, and neglects the individual rights. The other opening is called deontology, which takes into consideration the way something is to be done and not expert on the consequences of that action. One may tell a lie to the doctor, just to save a friend but doesnt think of the grave consequences they have to suffer later on.A person reservation a voluntary euthanasia uses the utilitarianism theory when making such a public opinion. One might choose to voluntarily do euthanasia if the person has reached an all-time low and the only other option is to the act. T he person has to have thoroughly thought approximately the consequences and make sure his or her judgment is not biased or is not taken personal. There are indisputable conditions that apply for one to request voluntary euthanasia. Conditions are an unlikelihood of recovering from a cure, suffering from a terminal illness, and most importantly, they must have a voluntary wish to die. As can be seen by the multiple views of the authors, euthanasia is not an easy topic to side on. imputable to many religious beliefs, one may feel euthanasia is wrong. But as a nurse that sees suffering every day, this same person would support euthanasia if not condemned by his/her religion. With the support of the do no harm belief, it can also be construed that assisting in euthanasia is not doing harm, but preventing harm for those with chronic impish pain. There is no nationwide move for the majority of the states to legislate for euthanasia, but appreciatively there are two, soon to be three compassionate states that have in-acted this law.ReferencesBlizzard, R. (2002). powerful to die or dead to rights? Retrieved from http//www.gallup.com/ pollard/6265/Right-Die-Dead-Rights.aspx?version=print Euthanasia The nurses role (2011). Issues in nursing. Retrieved on 10/3/12 from Nursing students 417.wordpress.comExit International Australia (2012). Death with Dignity in Oregon (soon to be Montana. Retrieved from http//www.exitinternational.net/page/USA Gore, J. (2011) Stakeholders in Euthanasia. Retrieved fromhttp//jacktgore.edublogs.org/2011/08/03/stakeholders-in-euthanasia/ LeBaron Jr, G. (2010). The ethics of euthanasia. Retrieved October 3, 2012, from http//www.quantonics.com/The_Ethics_of_Euthanasia_By_Garn_LeBaron.html Purtilo, R., & Doherty, R. (2011). Ethical dimensions in the health professions (5th ed.). St. Louis, MO Elsevier. Task durability on the Nurses use of goods and services in End-of-Life Decisions, 2011. (2011). Journal of Social civilize Values and Ethics, 8(1). Webster, B. (2009). Assisted Suicide/ willful Euthanasia. International debate education association. UK. Retrieved from http//www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_print.php?topicID=55 Wells, K. R., Frey, R. (2006). The gale encyclopedia of nursing and allied health ed. In J. L. LONGE (Ed.), (2 ed., Vol. 2, pp. 993-996). DETROIT, GALE