Abstract
The purpose of this research paper is to review the topic on ‘end-of-life option' using different perspectives including ethical perspective, cultural perspective, scientific perspective, and analytical perspective. Since the end-of-life option is a controversial issue, these perspectives will help conduct an in-depth analysis and understand whether terminally ill patients and physicians should use the end-of-life option without legal liability. The hypothesis of this research is that terminally ill patients should be permitted to make medical decisions and in specific, end-of-life option. In the introduction, the paper introduces the end-of-life option act which states that all adults with terminal illnesses have the right to request the aid-in-dying drug. The paper provides a specific perspective that provides a supportive argument and a mechanism on how the patients die. The paper provides an analytic perspective to provide the data and information regarding the health spending for terminally ill patients and how the end-of-life option has brought a great improvement in the number of stay in hospital patients. According to the ethical perspective, the idea of end-of-life option is a two-edge-sword since supporters argue that terminally patients should be aided to die to eliminate financial hardships, pain and suffering and emotion suffering to the family members. However, opponents argue that assisted suicide will become a norm in the palliative care and any patient who suffer from medical finances would be given this option of which is unethical. Finally, the cultural perspective incorporates religious views to argue that people should die with respect and no one has the right to interfere with the nature life expect God. The paper derived data and information from journal article to provide a credible evidence and a compelling conclusion.
Introduction
End of Life Option Act refers to a new California law which will agree a terminally sick patient present a request for a drug from his own physician which will eventually terminate the patient's life. Different patients who do request to end their own life this manner and those who critically follow the set steps of law are not considered to have committed suicide as the act is considered lawfully in California. Physicians who provide help for their patients in this process with a care provider and follow up of the needed steps in the law will be providing a new improved and legal form of an end of life care and hence will not be a subject on the legal professional or liability sanction in doing so. Within the state, there are different types of people who can use this type of Act. To get this aid-in-dying, the patient must have attained the age of 18 years and above and also must be a patient and a resident within the state of California (Forbes et al., 2017). In addition to this, the patient must also have the terminal disease in him, the patient should also have the capacity to make very sound decisions, should not have impaired decisions as a result of being mentally disordered and lastly should have the mental, ability and physically fit to take the drug at the time the physicians want to apply it. In addition to this, patients within this state cannot request aid-in-dying in other documents or advanced directives.
Culture basically shapes the manner in which people view illness, misery, and dying. With the ever-increasing diversity all over the world, especially in America, multicultural interactions between patients and medical caregivers of various backgrounds are becoming common phenomena (Aramesh, & Shadi, 2007). As a result, the risk for multicultural misinterpretation concerning health upkeep at the end of life is on the rise. Researches revealed existing variances in approaches toward truth telling, life lengthening technology and decision-making mechanisms at the end of life. This paper will carry out an in-depth analysis on both ethical and cultural perspectives on underlying reasons Muslim culture and religion do not permit end of life option. In addition, the essay will single out power, finances, and control matters surrounding the termination of life or euthanasia and all other aspects surrounding the topic.
Scientific Perspective
Euthanasia in patients is done by the performing and attending physician through administering a fatal dose of a suitable drug the patient in need on the drug on his express request to be done so. The connected Dutch legislation likewise covers the physician-assisted suicide this happens in a case where the physician suppliers the drug but the patient personally administers the drug himself. In addition to this, Palliative sedation is not a type of euthanasia but the suffering patient is just rendered unconscious with drugs which reduce pain on the patient where the patient dies eventually from just a natural cause. According to the law of land, assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal actions if the method laid down in Termination of life act on assisted and request suicide actions are completely and fully followed.
There are greater significant which are connected with euthanasia in human beings for it helps patients with the terminal to end their life's and hence end the sought of suffering which they go through after they get sick. To apply these drugs to patients, different methods can be used to apply these drugs to patients. These methods include the application of different drugs to the patient which includes a doctor prescribing a type of drug which is indent at killing the patient. After the drug is prescribed by the doctor, the patient is made aware of the directions which make the patient understand the process of taking the pills. The other method which can be applied is the for injection which includes the application of an injection to a patient which is aimed at rendering a patient comatose which is followed by another injection used to stop the patient heart from functioning, Dehydration and Starvation which make the right-to-die different activist mostly advocate the critical withdrawal of water and food in order to hasten death to the patient (Taylor, 2017). In addition to this, plastic bags, gases and peaceful pills is another method referred to as self-deliverance which in common methods advocated by the right to die activists. The above highlights just the different methods which can be put in practice for the application of euthanasia on patients and which applied can critically perform the practice bet of patients. A critically fall up and application of the above methods makes the process important.
After the patient is confirmed for the activity, the practices involve injecting the patient with one type or more types of drugs into the person for the purpose of expressing or causing direct death to the patient. After the drug is applied to the patient, it causes the patient to get unconscious where different body parts get their operational rates of work within the body happening slowly hence the patient goes unconscious. After going unconscious, the patient stops breathing which leads to heart arrhythmia in that order followed by the brain where the patients eventually die from the effects of the applied drug(s).
Mathematical/Analytical Perspective
As the use and application of end-of-life Act in California state have been passed and its effects felt, people have continued to use the method in terminating persons life’s who have a terminable disease. The act has proved to be effective hence people have continued to apply this method in terminating lives. The number of people who have been applying this method for their loved ones has increased drastically since the policy was passed. For example, CNN reported that one-hundred and eleven people who died last year have all died through the application of this process. When the End of Life Act went on effect on 9th June 2016, it gave Californian residents who were of 18 years of age and above the mandate to request a sought of life ending request from different medical health doctors if they are called suffering from a terminal type of illness (Taylor, 2017). As reported, in 2016 between June and December, 258 people initiated and applied the procedures associated with the process where 119 people were then prescribed for lethal medication. As a result of the medicine application, 111 of the people of whom the drug was applied to die from the effects of the drug, 21 persons died as result of the underlying terminal illness where the results of the other 59 people who were prescribed for the drug is currently unexplained and there has been no reported result within the time frame. It is claimed that of the 111 people who utilized this treatment were cancer patients with a median age of 73 years of age where most of them were whites.
As presented the total health care spending for people in America was reported to be around $3.5 trillion in the year 2017 where 32% of the total amount was reported to be used on medical health care only. Hospital cost in the nation averaged around $3,949 per day where each person stays in the hospital was estimated to be around $15,534 (Quill, Back & Block, 2016). These figures have recently dropped as a result of End-of-Life-Act introduction. Most of the people who used to stay in Hospitals for longer periods of time have recently been here living terminated hence indicating a drop on those figures.
Cultural perspective
Passing away with dignity regulations permit a terminally ill patient to accelerate an unavoidable death (Brockopp, 2008). While many faith customs observe ancient customs and insights concerning the final steps before one’s life come to an end, advancement in technology made it possible for religious people to reexamine some philosophies. Death and dignity laws give people a chance to contemplate a vital question pertaining their life.
Muslims are against euthanasia or aided death. Muslims believe that all human life is holy and comes from God or Allah and Allah is the only person who has the right to take or preserve life. Mortal beings have no right to interrupt the natural course of life. Hence ending life is a not an option for Muslims and prohibited among members. Medical doctors should not take an active role in the termination of a patient’s life (Naseh, Rafiei, & Heidari, 2015). According to the Qur’an, no person has the right to take another individual’s life except while seeking justice.
Just like any other religion, death is a vital aspect of Muslim religion. Strict Muslim believers do not support resuscitation as they claim it is a form of euthanasia, strictly prohibited within Muslim circles (Lippert et.al, 2010). A Muslim cannot commit murder or take part in it in any way. In addition, Islamic code governing ethics maintains that even if a person is in a vegetative state, the role of a medical doctor is maintaining or sustaining life.
Accepting the end of life option shakes down the sacredness of life according to most Muslims. End of life option has a pendulum effect on critical communal issues such as whether a fetus during its early stages is an actual being. As absurd as it may seem, a patient with a terminal illness has a right to life and completely human. The sacredness of human life does not stem from religious perspectives or opinion but the need to value life, regardless of the medical state in which it exists (Moss et.al, 2010). Advocates of euthanasia suggest that life is priceless but also bring forth another flipside of the argument. Ending the life an individual suffering from a painful sickness, brings respect to human life. Dying with respect sanctifies life. Thus, the contentious issues revolving around end of life option continue to evoke endless debates and sometimes the advocates cross the line. However, it is vital to note that quality of life has no connection with sanctity. Consequently, between quality and sanctity, the sacredness of life outweighs the quality of life. Viewing the argument in terms of quality of life, it actually implies that people with a low-quality lifestyle deserve to die. Maintaining the same line of thought means that individuals with a quality life have more right to live than their counterpart does. In short, Muslims scholars support their argument from all angles: legalistic, social, and religious angles.
Ethical perspective
For instance, the right to sell oneself to slavery is not a well-thought-out action. Neither is the right to end your own life due to the scourging effects of a terminal illness. A physician in a resource limited medical facility, the insurance institution, emotionally drained relatives attached to the patient may find the option of ending attractive once it becomes a viable option tabled in front of them (Yousuf, & Fauzi, 2012). Therefore, removing the option of death, gives medical experts and insurance institutions the right to fight against terminal illness and find creative ways of preserving the will of life.
Of course, the other side of the argument might claim there are better ways of going about euthanasia. For example, some people may suggest that psychiatrists and doctors might assess a patient and confirm whether the person is of sound mind before acting upon their decision (Lippert et.al, 2010). Nevertheless, the above context applies only to people with a terminal illness or others who want to end life. Although their reasons seem valid, they are not justifiable to the humanity and society. Therefore, no one has power to give a go ahead for the procedure used in the elimination. Thus, assisted suicide would open an entire Pandora box of controversies if the government allows pain and suffering to be the main determinants of euthanasia. Once voluntary assisted suicide becomes normal, it would spread to palliative care patients. Any tom dick and harry would request the procedure once medical finances dwindle.
Proponents of ending life option may propose that the practice already exists in many various forms and doctors and other healthcare providers conduct it all the time without fear and that the media has no clue (Moss et.al, 2010). More so, legalizing it would open more secure ways for practicing the deed. Thus, accepting the procedure is likely to prevent its misuse and corruptions that often accompanies it. In other words, legalizing euthanasia would avail guidelines and prevent misuse of the procedure.
People have a right to live their lives as they please. There are many public attitudes toward end of life option (Naseh, Rafiei, & Heidari, 2015). Surveys show that there is not enough support for end of life option. Literature reviews on the topic show that more than two third of American do not support both euthanasia and regulations that accompany the procedure. Politically speaking, legislators hesitate on the issue because they might lose votes.
Surveys that monitor trends speculate that physicians do not easily accept a patient’s plea for termination of life. In addition, there is a rising concern that people might exploit the poor and the old if end of life option becomes legal (Brockopp, 2008). Poverty stricken people may see death as an option when faced with heavy medical bills. Religion plays a major role in shaping the thoughts of people on the issue. In a country like India, where 90% of the population is Indian, the dominant faiths are Hindu and Islam. Hence, end of life option faces a stiff opposition due to the religious beliefs.
Two tactics inhibit the legalization of end of life option. The first line of thought seems to derive its main argument from a religious perspective which claims that people are made by God and their value is priceless and no one should interfere with the sacredness that comes from life. Thus, end of life option goes against personal dignity of life. With religion comes the ethical side of end of life option, which makes physicians take a stand against it. On the other hand, the rhetorical nature of the subject matter tends to excite and elicit emotions rather solve the underlying issue (Brockopp, 2008). For instance, let us consider a context where one withholds treatment from a person suffering from a terminal illness, when the treatment does not make a difference and the treatment itself has a negative toll on the patient, the context is a weighty matter but euthanasia is weightier. Another subtle element is discernment. A terminally ill individual does not have the ability to make sound decisions. In summary, legalizing termination of life stands on shaky ground and may be a go-ahead button that would permit myriad of crimes. More so, regulating the act is a tedious task.
Conclusion
The research paper has reviewed the California end-of-life option act and different perspectives have offered supportive arguments and counterclaims regarding the issue. From the Islamic point of view, life is a gift from Allah and no one should cause harm to his life or the life of others. The Muslim religion also acknowledges that Muslims should seek treatment from Allah. In the case of terminally ill patients, physicians should give the patients and the family a realistic and achievable hope waiting for a natural death. Thus, the Muslim perceive reject the assisted suicide and argue that terminally ill people should be given quality care and pray to Allah to give them life. However, focusing on other reasons and evidence, physician-assisted death should be legalized and the health care system should focus on ethical and social implication. It should also focus on the ethical perspective, analytical perspective, and scientific perspective. From the ethical perspective, the solution to the debatable issue of end-of-life option is that legalizing physician assisted suicide is an ethical act. This because, patients have the right to medical treatment and in this case, they have a right to request physician-assisted suicide. On the same note, physicians should fulfill the best interest of the patient as long as they are maximizing benefits and minimizing risks. Second, it is ethical to provide physician-assisted suicide to promote justice. In this case, justice means that there should be no conflict of interest but instead, physicians should provide medical care in the best interest of the care receiver. By so doing, they alleviate patients suffering, they show compassion and respect to the choice of the patient and they promote emotional well-being to the family members. The analytical perspective concludes that physical-assisted suicide should be legalized to reduce the number of patients with terminal illnesses. Note that the patients and their family members also develop depression and anxiety due to hopelessness, financial hardships, and other concerns. Rather than allowing patients to continue suffering, physicians should apply the different easy methods to perform the practice.
Point to the future
End-of-life option or physician-assisted suicide is the solution to terminally ill patients. Focusing on ethical, analytic and scientific perspective, this practice is effective in alleviating not only pain and suffering but also emotional and financial strains to the family members. Thus, it is ethically, clinically and scientifically right to end the life of terminally ill patients. Although the act is a statutory offense in some States, I believe that it is important to focus on social justices issues. In this case, the medical professional should focus on building human dignity by helping the most vulnerable people who view themselves as burdensome to their families. In my opinion, I believe that nurses have an important role to play especially in the palliative care setting. States that have not authorized physician-assisted suicide should do so and give the physicians the authority to terminate the life of critically ill patients. They should provide both active and passive euthanasia. I think that the use of medication when there is an inevitability of death is useless. At this point, the physician and patients should make a collective decision and prefer the end-of-life option.
Reference
Aramesh, K., & Shadi, H. (2007). Euthanasia: an Islamic ethical perspective.
Brockopp, J. E. (2008). Islam and bioethics: Beyond abortion and euthanasia. Journal of Religious Ethics, 36(1), 3-12.
Forbes, L., Petrillo, L., Dzeng, E., Harrison, K. L., Scribner, B., & Koenig, B. (2017). RESPONDING TO THE END-OF-LIFE OPTION ACT IN CALIFORNIA. Innovation in ageing, 1(Suppl 1), 505.
Lippert, F. K., Raffay, V., Georgiou, M., Steen, P. A., & Bossaert, L. (2010). European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010 Section 10. The ethics of resuscitation and end-of-life decisions. Resuscitation, 81(10), 1445.
Moss, A. H., Lunney, J. R., Culp, S., Auber, M., Kurian, S., Rogers, J., ... & Abraham, J. (2010). Prognostic significance of the “surprise” question in cancer patients. Journal of palliative medicine, 13(7), 837-840.
Naseh, L., Rafiei, H., & Heidari, M. (2015). Nurses' attitudes towards euthanasia: a cross-sectional study in Iran. International journal of palliative nursing, 21(1), 43-48.
Nelson, C. (2016). An Ethics of Permission: A Response to the California End of Life Option Act. The Permanente Journal, 20(4),122.
Quill, T. E., Back, A. L., & Block, S. D. (2016). Responding to patients requesting physician- assisted death: physician involvement at the very end of life. Jama, 315(3), pp.245-246.
Taylor, C. L. (2017). Veterinary hospice: a compassionate option at the end of a pet's life?. The Veterinary Nurse, 8(8), pp.416-423.
Yousuf, R. M., & Fauzi, A. R. (2012). Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Review from Islamic Point of View. International Medical Journal Malaysia, 11(1).
