End Of Life Flashcards
Intro - what is the end of life debate
End of life debate = opportunity to chose assisted dying rather than living on palliative care
(Going to die within next 12 months or affected by a life-changing illness or disabling disease)
Intro - UK law/pall care
In UK = illegal to be euthanised (the only option is palliative care - aims to reduce suffering by assisting spiritual, physical, psychological and financial needs)
Although does aid ones suffering, it does not extinguish the suffering of those who have accepted death and would rather opp to decide
DID = 84% pop believe change to UK law
Intro - LOA
Although…. I believe instead personal choice is central to…
Eg, although considering the sanctity of life is necessary when debating… to ensure those dying aren’t pressurised into choosing to have assisted death… I believe instead…
Christianity on sanctity of life
Euthanasia comes from two Greek words ‘eu’ - good and ‘Thanatos’ - death (allowing utilitarians to regard euthanasia as an act of love by allowing the opportunity to die a good death at the time of their choosing removing distress of having to die long painful natural death)
Religion regards eu as a sin: evidenced through Christianity who’s principle doctrine = sanctity of life
Meaning Christian’s regard all human life as sacred as induced through Genesis 1:27 “God created man in his own image”
Analysis of Christian’s views on sanctity of life
Christians use this to argue the importance of human life as genesis teaches humans to be made in Gods image = attributes of God and a level of sacredness not shared by other animals
Thus Christian’s do not accept the use of assisted dying = deliberate killing of sacred life goes against sixth Ten Commandments ‘thou shall not kill’ = a sin to God the giver of life as only he can decide when one dies
Evaluation of Christian beliefs
I would argue inconsistencies as how is it that to end ones own suffering is regarded an act of sin toward God
Yet throughout history and in some countries today capital punishment is deemed permissible?
Surely to end another’s life - no need - should be regarded as worse than to choose to take ones own life?
As to make decisions over another’s life means to be playing God
Therefore, I don’t believe sanctity of life to be central to the end of life care decisions as the argument provided by Christianity doesn’t prevent lives being lost to capital punishment therefore it is not enough to refute the use of euthanasia
Further evaluation of Christian ideas
Furthermore, DID 80% of all religious people in UK support change to law thus the old fashioned religious ideals are less significant in todays society as vast maj of rel = favour of changing law
Catholic Church
The Catholic Church emphasises the sanctity of life in regards to end of life care arguing there is value in suffering at the end of life (remember and pay thanks to Jesus on the cross)
STRONGLY DISAGREE this doesn’t conform to the characteristics of Gods divine creation nor his benevolent attributes thus catholic views nope as they lead to further harm and suffering
Palliative care - what is it?
For those who argue in favour of prioritising the sanctity of life, palliative is the treatment supported.
Palliative care aims to accommodate for needs through many differing features of care
Physical care
such as physical care (pain management and symptom control to make mor comfortable and relieve suffering)
I argue using drugs on dying is a waste of vital resources (could be used for those recovering from illness rather than for those who wish to be euthanised due to natural physical and mental pain)
Prof Robert George supports “I believe it to be morally wrong to waste a dying persons time”
- importance of personal choice as even if use of pain management is effective at easing some symptoms, those who are prepared for death would rather end life through own decision to do so (than waiting to die on meds makes them feel not like themselves)
Spiritual needs
Palliative care also prioritises spiritual needs
Catholic belief of last rights included in catholic patients care plan
Patients w/ spiritual needs also given opportunity to converse with carers to ensure necessary to reach afterlife is achieved before death
Spiritual needs analysis
Thus only acceptable treatment for religions such as Christianity as not only supports natural death - gods decision when one dies -
But also assists the process believed necessary to reach after life
However, just bc favoured by religion doesn’t disregard use of euthanasia for others Baroness Molly-Meacher “the current law doesn’t work for patients its cruel and leads to untold suffering and needs to be brought to an end”
Thus personal choice as although for spiritual patients it fulfils its needs to fully facilitate for personal choice all options must be available, incl euthanasia, to fully respect patients wishes
Law in UK
Euthanasia is illegal and punishable by a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Therefore current law criminalises rather than providing safe legal services = people ending life’s in harmful ways to end their suffering as seen
Between April 2009 and march 2022 = 74 cases police in eng and wales recorded as assisted suicide
Law also = prosecution of any physicians or family members who assisted as there are no safe guards in place to protect the best interests of this third party involvement
Jenny Saunders
Advocate for the voluntary euthanasia society: by legalising euthanasia “better help the terminally ill, medical staff and vulnerable people”
= imp of personal choice as to legalise would not only allow patients right to self-governance to be fulfilled but also prevent risk of prosecution for any third party involvement
Dignity in dying on the law
Uk based organisation, campaigning for change to the law arguing personal autonomy and choice central stating “Many more are suffering and dying without dignity because they have no choice”
Strongly agree as I believe principle of autonomy to be vital in end of life care as one of medical ethics strongest principles = patents right to autonomy
Thus to fulfil this right one must have the ability to act freely on own conscious regarding their medical care (incl euthanasia at the end of life)
Dignity in dying example of Netherlands
Example of other countries as evidence to pass a law in the UK would greatly benefit its citizens.
Netherlands 1st of April 2002 ‘Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act’
Legalised and decriminalised the use of euthanasia
= plausible example of the importance of prioritising personal choice (giving those dying control over their lives and compassion for their suffering)
MP Danny Kruger
Euthanasia in the UK “would open up a terrible dystopia if legalised” implying to allow one to request euthanasia lacks moral values
COMPLETELY DISAGREE Kruger’s description of a dystopian society as word dystopian illustrates society where its citizens aren’t treated fairly - from the examples of countries who have legalised it
= completely untrue as to allow citizens to end their suffering legally I ARGUE far more utopian than the current UK law
Slippery slope - types of euthanasia
Some take Krugers views to back up the slippery slope argument
Slippery slope rejects the use of euthanasia and looks at potential situations where legalising euthanasia could lead to mistreatment of the law.
Argues while legalising voluntary euthanasia would to some be regarded as ethical but it could lead to practices performing non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia
AGREE as to euthanise one against their will does not prioritise personal choice - critical in end of life
Slippery slope - sanctioning death
Goes on to argue to legalise euthanasia = law ultimately sanctioning the death of thousands of its citizens
DISAGREE clear from countries legalised this isn’t the case
Netherlands 66% of requests are rejected
Thus disregarding significance slippery slope argument as this data proves requests are treated as a long process (ensure correct judgement)
Thus slippery slope = consequentialist claims without evidence to support its premise
With several evidence to refute its premise
Tony Nicklinson
Thus to legalise would help those suffering rather than hinder
2005 Nicklinson suffered stroke = paralysed only able to move head/eyes and wanting to die
Due to paralysis required assistance to fulfil need to die
High court to make lawful for doctor to help him end his life
ARGUED CURRENT LAW = INCOMPATIBLE WITH RIGHT TO PRIVATE LIFE (article 8 of the European convention on human rights)
Court refused and died 6 days later after contracting pneumonia (refusing to eat or drink)
= CURRENT LAWE GREATLY HINDERS LIVES BY FORCING THOSE DYING TO LIVE PROLONGED PAINFUL LIVES BY REFUSING TO LEGALISE EUTHANAISA
Furthermore, the fact overwhelming majority of UK citizens support change to the law I would argue has to be acknowledged by the government and changes need to be made
Conclude
Do not believe… rather personal choice central to the argument (right to life should also permit one to the right to death if suffering intolerably)
UK law must be changed as for some the option of palliative care is ineffective at meeting the patients needs and choices
Furthermore, for people in power to deem assisted dying as morally unacceptable doesn’t prevent people from harmfully attempting to end their own lives (therefore to intrusive a safe-guarded law would ensure the best treatment for the patient giving them dignity in their death and control over their life)
Conclusion - Principles for dying a good death 1999 age concern of London
In order to ensure all principles for dying a good death are met patients must “be able to issue advance directives which ensure wishes are respected”
thus stressing that despite the benefits of palliative care to fully respect a patients autonomous wishes, I believe all options must be legal
