One other issue that is related to the ethics behind euthanasia is that chronically ill patients often vary in their decisions with respect to the treatment that they would like to receive during their stay in the hospital. Clinical investigations show that most of the patients who earlier requested that their suffering be ended had actually changed their mind after giving them some time to think about their decision.
It has been estimated that only 30% of euthanasia candidates held on to their decision after several days or weeks of staying in the hospital (Janssen et al. , 2008). The patients who decided not to proceed with euthanasia were actually given alternative treatments to go with their currently active procedures and this additional activity had altered their plans of giving up on themselves (Thorns, 2009). These alternative treatments allowed the patients to realize that there were other ways for them to adapt to their new conditions (Kuschner et al., 2009).
In addition, these patients showed an increase in their tolerance levels and their perception of life changed to that of being hopeful. If a certain country allowed the legalization of euthanasia, then it is most probable to see a significant loss in lives because a simple discomfort could immediately be treated with death-inducing procedures. It should also be understood that alternative methods are more tedious to perform and thus both time and effort will be necessary in order to complete such activities.
The issue of euthanasia allows touches on the concept of human life. It has long been taught in most religions, especially that of Christianity, that God alone can give life and thus no other individual has the right to take this away from a human being, regardless of his health condition (Inghelbrecht et al. , 2009). Euthanasia also involves a comprehensive review of the rights of a patient, wherein it should be understood that each patient must heard as to what he exactly wishes.
The responsibilities of the healthcare professionals should also be reviewed because it is important the each of these personnel do not inflict any harm to a patient. This concept should never be considered as a right of a physician or nurse to induced death in a patient because this individual has the right to ask for it whenever he pleases. EUTHANASIA AND THE SOCIETY The issue of euthanasia can be described in terms of the slippery slope phenomenon, which involves to the administration or induction of death in a patient due to certain impending medical conditions.
This phenomenon is termed slippery slope because the defining bases for administering euthanasia often changes, depending on the dominant characteristics of each medical case. It is thus difficult to determine whether euthanasia was justly performed based on the identification of the medical condition of a patient. It is also even harder to directly know whether every treatment option conducted on a particular patient was futile and the condition of the patient even deteriorated further.
The slippery slope phenomenon of euthanasia is often observed when a patient is categorized to be in a persistent vegetative state. In this neurological condition, the patient is unreactive or in a coma and his brain stem has been damaged. Thus, a patient in a persistent vegetative state has totally lost his ability to communicate and this condition is irreversible, due to the severe damage to his brain stem. However, the patient is still conscious of his surroundings yet he could not express what he feels except through the gag reflex.
It is important to distinguish a patient in a persistent vegetative state from that of a patient that is brain dead (Sheldon, 2009). The central nervous system is composed of the brain or cerebrum and the brain stem. In a brain dead person, these two components are not active anymore and thus the patient needs to be supported by a respirator in order to bring oxygen to the rest of the body. On the other hand, a patient in a persistent vegetative state only has one component that is inactivated.
The brain stem is damaged in this medical condition and his brain could still function and thus the person is still considered alive and thus does not need any respirator to fulfill the activity of breathing. The patient can stay awake for an entire day yet his motor skills are not functioning. A situation involving a patient in a persistent vegetative state thus serves as an exception to euthanasia, because the patient can understand what is going on around him yet he has lost his capacity to express his feelings to his physician, nurses and his relatives.
Should euthanasia be legal in a particular country, it would be relatively easy to implement euthanasia based on the patient’s apparent loss of capability in letting his physician or family know what he wants to be done to him (Brits et al. , 2009). This patient can still decide on any kind of issue yet the existence of a physical barrier of not being able to speak has prevented him from expressing his desires and emotions.