Ethics And Euthanasia
Technology And Active Euthanasia: What Do We Need To Know!?
If Physicians Don't Assist In Ending One's Life, Then Technology May Do Better!
Euthanasia, or assisted suicide, as some call it, is one of the most controversial yet fastest-growing ethical dilemmas of our time. Ending a patient's life to save them from suffering and pain is a very delicate subject. That comes not merely because death and killing are not something we accept as good or spiritually; the so-called all mighty is the only one who decides when and how the patient should pass. Those are separate subjects of discussion. However, it is merely about who is willing to perform that duty for them and if that person's moral standing is in line with that of the suffering patient.
Every patient who reaches the end of their life journey because of an irreversible disease must also have a doctor. That doctor may not have the moral aptitude under the Hippocratic oath or their sentiment.
Let us emphasize that when we talk about euthanasia here, we are primarily pointing to the idea of active euthanasia, which differs from passive euthanasia or intentionally allowing a patient to pass by withholding artificial life support like a ventilator or feeding tube.
Many countries and states are looking into actively ending a patient's life. That does not imply everyone who is suicidal would get their blessing to depart. But, it points to those medical cases that have proven untreatable and utterly undermine the sufferers' dignity and quality of life.
Although the opinion of doctors towards active euthanasia has been so far split, most are entirely reluctant to perform such a task. And those who are for active euthanasia probably would avoid that as much as possible.
The Hippocratic oath clearly states:
“I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan.”
The Hippocratic oath also states:
“Cure sometimes, treat often, comfort always.”
Without being judgmental, one can argue the level of pain and suffering that would justify the appropriateness of comfort measures.
Without a doubt, there is probably no medication out there that would effectively alleviate the misery and suffering of someone willing to die "Painlessly" with assistance. So, how would someone grant "Comfort always" when the only and last option is euthanasia?
The answer is straightforward!
In 370 BC, when Hippocrates outlined these for the first time, there were no ventilators or sophisticated technologies. Thus, they probably handled suffering with comforting modalities of the time. For instance, if there were does who suffered from nasty ailments such as AMS (Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also called Gehrig's disease) who often end up imprisoned within their own body, they wouldn't have the means to comfort themselves.
Then, Should Technology Accomplish The Euthanasia Task?
Modern medicine today is more de-personalized than ever. Such alienation trend of medicine from humanity by the ever-emerging technologies is also starting to affect how a person should leave this world.
The dying patients typically go through psychological stages before accepting that their time has come. And if the suffering before death drags on longer and becomes painstakingly unbearable, the question arises of who or what should intervene.
Better be human or technology?
The lack of active physician participation in euthanasia has given rise to a recent movement across various communities in the world called the "Citizens-based self-help movement." The movement was a revolution in Australia based on Philip Nitschke's experiences, the founder of "Exit International," and the technologically driven self-administered "peaceful pill" aid for dying with dignity.
However, more technological portions for euthanasia are already at our doorsteps!
Sarco suicide capsule is a 3-D printed human-sized capsule or cabin designed by a Swiss company and recognized by Exit International. The new technology seems to be waiting for its final approval before entering the market.
The chamber-like Sarco capsule contains a pump designed to deliver a high volume of Nitrogen gas within a short time as the person enters the flat coffin-like capsule and lies down comfortably. After answering a set of questions, the patient can voluntarily activate the chamber by pressing a button. The activation will induce the flood of nitrogen gas into the capsule, rapidly reducing the oxygen level to 1% from 21% in as short as 30 seconds. The sudden change inside the chamber will take the patient from slight euphoria to complete unconsciousness and death by lack of oxygen and carbon dioxide deprivation. According to the manufacturer, the process takes about 5–10 minutes and is 100% painless.
One of the eye-catching aspects of this invention is that it does not rely on using any form of pharmaceutical product or controlled substances. The latter is a significant concern as most pharma companies are unwilling to contribute to using these drugs in any shape or form for euthanasia.
Euthanasia Is An Ethical Issue, And Until We Assume It As An Acceptable Norm, Technology Will Take On The Task
Euthanasia is becoming more accepted and humane, but there is more work to involve the physician community.
Generations must pass, and People's spiritualities reform if we want to see death and dying as an active duty rather than a passive expectation.
One should never prohibit one's willingness to die under lucid circumstances and only in the face of exhausting all alternatives. And, when it comes to the moment of enactment, the person (with a sound mind) should meet that task. But, one can avoid abuse and error if these technologies also fall under the medical care umbrella. That would allow continuity of medical care from diagnosis" to "ultimate palliative care." That is mere because no one knows the patient as well as their treating doctor.
One can never justify the alienation of physicians from end-of-life care of the patient through active euthanasia if the person who is ending the life using natural resources like Nitrogen is the patient themselves.
Physicians perform abortions (if not all); however, it would be ironic but not surprising if the same physicians refuse to monitor patients for self-euthanasia.
Indeed, I presume physicians refuse to assist selected patients in ending their life with grace rather than passing passively in indignity. In that case, technology will do it better but may still not be humane enough short of the doctor-patient relationship.
Related Articles:
Should Doctors Be Allowed To Terminate Human Lives? Active Or Passive Euthanasia
