In consideration to medical ethics applied to western health policy, involuntary euthanasia among mentally incompetent patients is a decision entitled for immediate family members or caregivers who are not necessarily acknowledged by the patient (Bryant 412). As supported by Bryant (2003), medical institutions that support the practice on involuntary euthanasia employ the three main arguments: (1) mercy argument, (2) “Golden Rule” argument and (3) enhancement of liberty (413). The principal concerns of medical ethics are the principle conflicts between (1) nonmalifecence versus autonomy and (2) right to life versus dignified death.
The medical principle of nonmalifecence prevents health care providers and/or practitioners in rendering any potential procedures and/or decisions that can prolong, induce or increase the pain and suffering of an individual (Hope, Savulescu and Hendrick 166). In addition to the principle of nonmalifecence, the opposite principle, beneficence, suggests that any form of suffering and pain experienced by the patient should be treated at any means possible or for the best interest of the patient’s condition.
These two medical ethics justify the action involuntary euthanasia among terminally ill and incompetent patients who are experiencing intense pain and suffering. According to Hope, Savulescu and Hendrick (2003), the “mercy” principle/ beneficence and nonmalifecence justify the action of involuntary euthanasia if the suffering associated to the terminal condition is so great that it outweighs the benefits of continuing to live (166). However, the conflicting principle, autonomy, mandates that as long as the patient refrains from imposing his or her personal will directly to the acknowledged appointee or substitute decision-maker (e.
g. medical practitioner, immediate family members, caretaker, etc. ) through advanced directives or signed consent, no individual can decide over the life of the patient (Bryant 413-414). By this principle, the mentally incompetent individual is still entitled to his life regardless of any form of suffering, and medical practitioners can provide palliative/hospice care to alleviate the patient from these pains and sufferings (Hope, Savulescu and Hendrick 166).
In terms of the second argument, right to life versus dignified death, the principle of maintaining life based on the innate principle entitled to every person contradicts to the principle of dying free from intensive suffering and pain, and attaining a dignified death. In the medical principle of right to life, if a mentally handicapped and terminally ill individual undergoes involuntary euthanasia without directly acknowledged consent or advanced directive, the substitution of liabilities and decision is ethically unacceptable and morally incorrect (Bryant 414).
On the other hand, the principle of dignified death suggests that if a person does not possess the capacity to appropriately decide for his/her own condition (e. g. mentally incapacitated, etc. ), an immediate decision-maker (e. g. family members, caretaker, court-appointed representative, etc. ) can decide to halt the suffering and prevent further pain being experienced by the patient. Such action is ethically appropriate and acceptable under the principle of dignified death (Preece 124).