Journal Response :
Euthanasia
Dear family,
This period of deep sorrow has caught us between a rock and a hard place as we have to make a crucial decision concerning the end of life care for our loved one. Before we make the decision, it is essential to weigh both sides of the process and have more knowledge concerning the use of euthanasia. According to Rachels, a social policy or action can be perceived to be right when it aims to increase happiness and reduce misery in the world. Rachel’s mindset supports the use of euthanasia since it can significantly reduce pain among patients who are hopelessly ill, and it is often their choice. The euthanasia policy is, therefore, morally right based on a utilitarian perspective.
The use of euthanasia is also ethical since it does not violate most ethical principles in healthcare. Rachels concluded that if an action is in the best interest of all people and does not violate any right, it can be perceived as being morally acceptable. This case is similar to euthanasia since it often promotes the best interests of those concerned and does not violate the right of the person. For our current situation, taking part in euthanasia is in our loved one’s best interest since he will not have to die a painful death. As family members, the idea is also in our best interest as we would not have to watch the unbearable suffering experienced by our loved one. The healthcare facility also tends to benefit as they would turn their attention to other patients and care for them using more resources.
On the contrary, the practice of euthanasia can be seen as an attempt to devalue human life. Gay-Williams argues that the practice violates the natural goal of survival, which is the human nature. Human dignity is also lost when euthanasia is used since survival is one of the human goals and the actions taken through the practice eliminate that goal. The cause of illnesses might as well be a result of wrong diagnosis and one may believe they are dying and they have little recovery options when in real sense that may not be the case. With this perspective, there might be hopes for recovery, but euthanasia would make the patient to die needlessly. Gay-Williams also argues that euthanasia does not support practical effects among healthcare professionals as it may promote the attitude rather than encouraging them to use the best interventions to save lives at critical conditions.
I think it would be in the best interest of more people, especially him, when we ease the pain being experienced by our loved one. If at all he is going to die, the best we can do is allow to have a peaceful death and be free of all the suffering that seem to last for ages. Allowing pain and suffering to people can as well be a violation of human dignity, and we should try our best to ensure our loved one does not suffer in pain until he dies. I support the use of euthanasia since it is the only better option that we have at the moment to give our loved one a better send-off.
Sources:
The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia by J. Gay-Williams
A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy by James Rachel. Retrieved from: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwHMsPTQrbbKVWTDkMBfNGzWJfg?projector=1&messagePartId=0.4
Response to the issue of Vaccines
Refusal of vaccination of children by parents has been increasing lately, and this behavior can increase the risk of getting certain infections, like measles, to a large group of population. I agree that the source of this behavior is largely attributed to celebrity campaigns against the practice as well as online forums where misinformation is rampant. As a healthcare professional, I think it can be beneficial to enforce strict measures to promote vaccination even if it includes denying treatment to children when they have not yet been vaccinated.