Ethics Organ Donation Euthanasia

Question: Discuss about teEthicsfor Organ Donation Euthanasia. Answer: Introduction: Belgium and Netherland are two of the very first countries that had legalized the practice of euthanasia and subsequent organ donation, although under highly restricted conditions. Although the process of transplantation of the human organs belonging to a dying patient, for therapeutic purpose, is regarded as one of the most gripping medical advances, it has given rise to a few issues of serious ethical considerations (Fletcher, 2015). It is an undeniable fact that organ transplantation is indeed helpful in saving the lives of a large number of people, who otherwise would have died because of organ failure. On the other hand, Organ Donation Euthanasia helps a dying patient, saves the life of an individual, about to die from vital organ failure. However, despite the positive impact of the method, the system is yet not free of a variety of moral and societal issues, which are being discussed below. Discussion: A few ethical issues that can arise because of the process of the organ transplantation include illegal practice of the organ sale by the entrepreneurs for personal gains, forceful persuasion of the patient to donate his organs against his wishes, the transplant of organ of a patient suffering from an infectious or harmful disease. Besides, a patient, while alive, might be willing to donate his organs to an individual belonging to his ethnic group or community, and yet his wish for the same can be discarded by the physicians, soon after his death. This is equally unethical. Ethics is an important branch of philosophy that upholds the importance of a set of beliefs, ideals and values, in governing any kind of human action (Cook, 2016). Healthcare ethics is an important branch of ethics, as it seeks to explain the importance of the moral values and ethical decisions, while making choice over the healthcare treatment (Chambaere et al., 2015). The good ethical standards should be followe d by each healthcare expert, as it is a part of their responsibility. However, although organ donation euthanasia is always done for a noble cause, it should be remembered that the healthcare providers should not merely focus on the benefits of the organ recipients, overlooking the last wish of the dying patient. While withdrawing life sustainability support system from the dying patient, the physicians often end up insisting the patient to donate his organ, against his wish, that cannot be considered to be ethical (Staib et al., 2014). In case the physicians refuse to inform the patient that their organs will be transplanted, it is equally an unethical choice, as in this situation, the benefactor is not being granted the power to make the decision, or not informed about how he is going to serve the needs of the beneficiary (Cook, 2016). Euthanasia is a process of withdrawing life support system from a dying patient, who has a very low or no chance of recovery from an incurable dise ase. Besides, the issue of euthanasia, itself is not free from ethical obligations (Bouquet et al., 2016). The question that can arise here is before ending the life of a patient, how the health professionals can determine if he is terminally ill or not. Medical research studies and health reports have been suggesting that it is indeed impossible to determine the life expectancy of an individual (Bollen et al., 2016). A patient, who is being deemed to be terminally ill, can live for ages, and hence withdrawing life support system from him, can in itself be considered unethical. Given that euthanasia is in itself not an ethical choice, the decision to die, should be completely taken by the patient, if not his family, and the whole act should be highly distinguished from the issue of organ transplantation (Ysaebert et al., 2015). Under no circumstance, should the patient be convinced to undergo the process of euthanasia, for the purpose of taking away his organs, and utilizing the same for serving the benefits of the other patients (Cook, 2016). Euthanasia should only be perpetrated in the best interest of the patient and only if the patient shows interest in being actively euthanized with the help of the lethal drugs. Hence, the central ethical issue that can arise here, is that the physician might persuade the patient to resort to euthanasia, so that after his death, his organs can be harvested (Evrard et al., 2014). The physicians may skip the essential medical steps that could improve and stabilize the critical health condition of the patient, and may convince the patient, and his family to resort to euthanasia. It is unethical to consider the patient, to be a mere body with organs, rather than respecting him as a human being (Shaw, 2014). As an important normative ethical theory, Utilitarianism upholds that an action should be regarded as right or wrong, completely on the basis of its outcome (Barrow,2015). Seen in the light of this theory, the action of organ donation euthanasia can be partially regarded as an ethical decision. In case of a serious health condition, the patient has a very low chance of survival. Hence, a patient afflicted with excruciating pain, or distressful health condition, may willfully decide to end his life. Instead of wasting money on his hydration and nutrition on a patient, whose brain has already undergone physical death, a family may consider the option of euthanizing the patient, so that his organs can save the life of another individual (Dijk et al., 2014). The outcome indeed is ethical, as it is done with the noble purpose of saving the life of another individual, who is unwilling to die, and can survive, if the organ is transplanted. Besides, the euthanasia causes painless death, and thus does not inflict any pain or torture on the patient, who is relieved from his pain. However, on the other hand, the application of the utilitarian argument, may also contradict the above view. It can be argued back, that the physician may be driven by the motive to transplant the organ of the dying patient, and in the process, may influence the patient and his family, to resort to euthanasia, that will deny the patient a little chance of survival. The patient is likely to be denied the autonomy of choice, and he may be persuaded to die, in favor of the well-being of another patient (Simoe, 2013). Considering this point, the outcome may not necessarily reflect the well-being of the patient or his family. The next ethical theory that can be considered here is Kants theory of ethics, the maxim of which was being taught by Emmanuel Kant. The view of the Kantian Ethics is that the goodness of the action solely depends on the goodness of the maxim, or the principle, underlying the action (ONeill, 2013). The only virtue that is deemed right by Kant, is good will. Kant maintains that if an action is done with a good will, even if the action fails, the action is regarded as ethically just. In the light of the Kantian theory of deontology, it can be said that the action of euthanasia is justified. The moral obligation of a doctor is to save the life of the patient, and hence the good will to save a life, or help a human being live more, is in itself very noble. Hence, euthanizing the patient, and influencing him to donate his organs, post death, can be ethically justified. The motive behind ending the life of a terminally ill patient, for increasing the survival chance of a patient, with bett er health condition, is highly benevolent. However, the counter-argument to this issue is that Kant considers suicide in the form of self-destruction, as an unethical act, and hence killing an individual, with the help of intervention of a second person should be treated equally unethical. The act of killing of any person can never have any positive impact, and the will to perpetrate the act of murder, is essentially evil by nature, according to Kant. However, this argument can easily be defended, as the idea of good will, as propounded by Kant, can be traced in the act of euthanasia (Holland, 2015). The patient euthanized, dies for a good motive, to help save the life of another patient, and hence the choice of killing a patient through euthanasia, cannot be treated to be unethical, under any circumstance. Conclusion: From the above arguments, it is clear that though euthanasia can be regarded as an ethically objectionable situation, the ultimate decision to end life and donate organs should be taken by the patient himself. Hence, the most ethical choice left for the healthcare experts, is that they can ask the patient whether they would wish their life to be ended by the application of euthanasia, and facilitate the donation of his organs for the well-being of the others. Under no circumstance, should a decision be thrust on the patient against his wish and against the wish of his family. A patient should not be killed via euthanasia, even if he is terminally ill, and only if he is willing to make an ethical choice of organ donation then only he can be euthanized. However, in case of brain death, the patient will not be able to decide for himself. In such situations, the decision of the family members, along with the discretion of the doctors, should be used. Reference List: Barrow, R. (2015).Utilitarianism: A contemporary statement. Routledge. Bollen, J., Jongh, W., Hagenaars, J., Dijk, G., Hoopen, R., Ysebaert, D., ... Mook, W. (2016). Organ Donation After Euthanasia: A Dutch Practical Manual.American Journal of Transplantation. Bousquet, A., Guirimand, F., Aubry, R., Leboul, D. (2016). Palliative care unit caregivers facing a euthanasia request: A qualitative pilot study.MEDECINE PALLIATIVE,15(1), 4-14. Chambaere, K., Vander Stichele, R., Mortier, F., Cohen, J., Deliens, L. (2015). Recent trends in euthanasia and other end-of-life practices in Belgium.New England Journal of Medicine,372(12), 1179-1181. Cook, M. (2016). Doctors say Lets increase organ transplant rates by encouraging euthanasia patients to donate | NRL News Today. Nationalrighttolifenews.org. Retrieved 13 December 2016, from https://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2016/06/doctors-say-lets-increase-organ-transplant-rates-by-encouraging-euthanasia-patients-to-donate/#.WE-X0dJ97IU Evrard, P., Bosmans, J. L. (2014). Preface: the belgian transplant society-a society that supports research, but also family donor action for organ donation. InTransplantation proceedings(Vol. 46, No. 9, pp. 3123-2014). Fletcher, J. F. (2015).Morals and Medicine: the moral problems of the patient's right to know the truth, contraception, artificial insemination, sterilization, euthanasia. Princeton University Press. Holland, S. (2015).Public health ethics. John Wiley Sons. O'Neill, O. (2013).Acting on principle: An essay on Kantian ethics. Cambridge University Press. Shaw, D. M. (2014). Organ donation after assisted suicide: a potential solution to the organ scarcity problem.Transplantation,98(3), 247-251. Simes, M. C. (2013). Hare's preference utilitarianism: an overview and critique.Trans/Form/Ao,36(2), 123-134. Staib-Lasarzik, I., Kriege, O., Timaru-Kast, R., Pieter, D., Werner, C., Engelhard, K., Thal, S. C. (2014). Anesthesia for euthanasia influences mRNA expression in healthy mice and after traumatic brain injury.Journal of neurotrauma,31(19), 1664-1671. van Dijk, G., Giezeman, A., Ultee, F., Hamers, R. (2012). [Organ donation after active euthanasia in a patient with a neurodegenerative disease].Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde,157(39), A6548-A6548. Ysebaert, D., Detry, O., Verfaillie, G., Mikhalski, D., Van Raemdonck, D. (2015). Organ donation after euthanasia on specific patients' request in Belgium.Transplant International,28(S4), 114.