Euthanasia Netherland Case Study

Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of an individual for the purposes of relieving pain and suffering. Over the years, there has been a big debate about its merits and demerits, and the debate is not about to end anytime soon. However, no matter what side of the debate one supports, it is important to consider a few facts. One, the prolonged stay in hospital is bound to raise medical costs. Two, some medical complications bring suffering and pain to the patient without any possibility of getting back to one 's normal activities of daily living. However, ending the life of a person intentionally may be treated as a serious crime in some jurisdictions. Given these facts, it is evident that making a decision about euthanasia is bound to be a challenging task. Although not everyone might agree, euthanasia is a necessary procedure that relieves the pain and suffering of the patient and rids the family and the government of expensive medical costs that would not necessary improve the life of the patient.

Secondly, the patient should be capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him or herself. Thirdly, the patient must be diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months.  Interested patients must also provide the request for termination in writing to the physician. In addition, physicians are expected to inform patients to alternative means of care including hospice care and other medications. Only after precautions evaluation, the laws then permit patients to make the ultimate life ending decision.

While many Americans assume “assisted suicide” or physician aid-in-dying (PAD) is unethical, they may not be fully aware of what it is and how it helps people. Imagine a loved one of yours was near the end of their life. The doctors predict only six months or less remain of their life and these next six months will consist of excruciating pain and will be almost too unbearable to comprehend. As the six months progress this person will lose the ability to eat. They will be forced to a diet of flaky ice chips which will put them in a state of relentless hunger making their body weaker and more painful than it had been before. They will also lose the ability to care for themselves and will find themselves relying on family members or complete strangers at times to care for their most private needs. After all this treatment, pain, embarrassment, and utter helplessness the patient will feel as if they have lost their dignity, they will feel as if they are a burden to everyone around them and will even become depressed in some cases. If the loved one lives in Washington State, Oregon, or Vermont they will then be faced with two options regarding the next six hypothetical months they can decide to take on the most unbearable six months of their life or they can resort to an alternative called “Death with Dignity” in which they will be administered a dose of medication from their physician that will take their life. The process is painless and can only be administered to patients

Other barriers in implementation might include the legality of certain medical interventions, associated costs and limited resources for providing the best care possible (Mason, 2013, p.12). As nurses, a barrier in implementing advance directives might also arise when advocated end-of-life wishes are undervalued or poorly recognized by others who do not share the same comfort or high priority in the medical workplace. Finally, the patient, families, and healthcare professionals face barriers in misconceptions regarding advance directives, especially in regards to

A patient has to judge his or her own quality of life, making the action of assessing if a patient’s quality of life is so low that they should be considered for PAD. Although dogs and humans are very different creatures, anatomically and spiritually, PAD is the same concept of putting a dog to sleep. Both beings are loved by others greatly and both experience a low quality of life when they are ill. But why is it better to put dogs down when they are suffering, but it is not ethical for it to be done when a human is suffering? 7.6 million companionship animals were put down last year (2014) (ASPCA). The same idea and process are behind PAD. Physician Assisted Death is not abused by physicians, despite what many people believe PAD is very uncommon, even in states where it is legal. “Approximately 1 of 1,000 Oregonians obtain and use a lethal dose of medication; 17% personally considered it as an option.” (Lachman). But America is not the only place where is a controversy. “85% of 218 nurses in Australia carried out the request the physician’s request for active euthanasia” (Lachman), and “10,000 citizens of the Netherlands, where PAD is legal,

Physician assisted death is an option available to all terminally ill residents in, California, Colorado, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia; and there are many reasons why the remaining forty-five states in the United Sates need to make this an option as well. One of the major arguments between supporters for the legalization of PAD and its opponents is, palliative care. Ball notes organizations such as the AMA, who is the largest medical professional association in the world, believe that a physician’s duty is to provide terminally ill patients with support, counseling and hospice care until that patient’s death, not assist them in dying (37). Although palliative care does help terminally ill patients manage their pain, it

This film explains the legal role of advance directives in end of life issues. An advance directive is “a written document directing how medical decisions are to be made in the future when the patient lacks decisional capacity and is unable to decide and choose” (Hanlon, End of Life Issues, Slide 28, Bullet 1). All three of the cases demonstrate the importance in filling out some form of directive. When there is nothing to go off of, it makes decisions extremely tough for families and medical providers. Having legal documentation of patient wishes helps understand what treatments they would or would not consent to. In cases like

The Death with Dignity Act of Oregon, Washington, and Montana has harsh patient eligibility criteria that limit access to competent, legal residents of over age 18, with terminal illness that were given an estimated life expectancy of 6 months or less which is to be confirmed by two independent physicians. There is also a requirement for two oral requests with a 15-day waiting period in between, as well as a written request that must be witnessed. The prescriptions may be written by the physician not less than 48 hours after the receipt of the written request. Patients must be mentally and physically be able to

PAS should be illegal because superior quality forms of palliative and hospice care can be and are provided. With many different options for terminally ill patients to be admitted into, the quality of these options have only gotten better. An article, written by Timothy Quill a Medical Professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center, argues that PAS is a very good last resort option in palliative and hospice care, but also claims that other forms of care have only gotten better with time, which provides many great options for the patients. “Palliative care and hospice have improved in terms of access and delivery, and they remain the standards of care for addressing the suffering of seriously ill patients” (Quill 2). PAS is not a form

In these states it’s legal for adult’s patient’s who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness with approximately only six months to live, voluntarily communicate with physician on end of care wishes, and is mentally in a logical state (ProCon.org, n.d).

Active euthanasia is a subject that is raising a lot of concern in today’s society on whether or not it should be legalized and under what circumstances should it be allowed. This is a very tricky subject due to its ability to be misused and abused. There are a wide variety of things that need to be considered when it comes to who should be allowed to request active euthanasia such as, is it an autonomous choice, do they have a terminal illness, is their quality of life dramatically decreased, and are they in pain and suffering. Both James Rachel and Daniel Callahan have very different opinions on active euthanasia and whether or not it should be allowed. However both authors manage to provide a substantial argument on where they stand regarding active euthanasia.

With an increasing aging population and growing numbers of individuals with chronic conditions, it is important for individuals to prepare for end-of-life care. An Advance Directive is a defined as a “legal document that provides data to critical care staff about patients’ wishes, especially when critical illness decreases decision-making ability” (McAdam, Stotts, Padilla, and Puntillo, 2005). An Advance Directive also allows for better communication between the patient and doctor, and preserves the autonomy of patients. It may also alleviate one’s family from any possible burden of uncertainty of one’s wishes. It provides guidance, which may avert arguments with family members concerning treatment choices (Cedars Sinai, 2015). The Patient

pressured by the Reich who threatened their parental rights. Threat almost always convinced a parent to institutionalize their child.

Today, the resolution for the debate is “Let it be resolved that euthanasia should be morally permissible for the disabled and children”. To begin with, one must comprehend the essence of “euthanasia” and “morally permissible” to follow the arguments in this debate. According to the Oxford Dictionary, euthanasia is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma”. Whereas, morally permissible according to Deni Elliot, in her book “Ethics the First Person” means the “behaviour that is tolerated by the moral system”. With regards to Euthanasia, it is classified as active and passive. In layman’s terms, “Active Euthanasia” is when the immediate result of death is not from the patient’s disease but a medical action was done to result their death such as providing a lethal drug. In the other hand, “Passive Euthanasia” is when the death is caused by the patient’s disease which enables to advance naturally without any influence of treatment which might prolong the patients’ life. As I have stated my clarifications, I am hereby to present three arguments within the PRO side of the debate.

Euthanasia debate opposes two sides in which one side argues that letting someone suffer is not ethical and the other side defend that to help someone to die is not ethical based on the morality that no one should kill or help someone to die (fundamental right that everyone is allowed to live), they judge that euthanasia should compromise the criminal code. For my own morality, I am for the euthanasia possibility for the people in need to die for the reason of the person’s well-being.