Ruggiero Analysis of Proponents
The primary argument of the proponents of active euthanasia is that everyone is autonomous and must be allowed to make their decisions without external influence (Sjöstrand et al. 225-30). Therefore, organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) feel that while the patient may not be able to make sound decisions while in a vegetative state, such a right should not be taken away from them.
In line with the Ruggiero analysis, among the other ideals and values, the proponents’ altruism is evident. Altruism is the selfless regard and devotion for the needs of others while foregoing the needs of oneself. As a value, the altruists feel they have an obligation to protect and make others respect the autonomy of the patient. The option of euthanasia is a personal and family decision. On that note, after consulting the patient, if the family settles on ‘mercy killing,’ then their wishes should not be contravened whatsoever.
The consequences of considering euthanasia based on such a value and obligation include medical corruption that may lead to the unlawful killing of patients. In cases where the patient is terminally ill, the doctors are only involved in the last stage of the decision-making chain after the families of the patient have had their say. In such cases, due to factors like financial constraints, the family may secretly decide to end the life of the patient without the knowledge of the doctor. The sovereignty of the patient and their family allows the family, rather than the doctor, to make vital decisions on behalf of the patient even without including the doctor if they see it fit for their sick relative. While the physician will be acting on the wishes of the patient’s family, hoping that it comes from the patient, they will be illegally killing the patient (Pereira). Additionally, when the guardians of the patient feel they may not afford to meet the costs of palliative care, they may go to the unethical extents of bribing some estranged doctors to euthanize the patient against their wishes. While the latter scenario is rare, its probability cannot be overlooked.
Clearly, the assumption, in this case, is that the euthanasia decision is the patient’s wish. Such an assumption is erratic as the ruling of the patient may have been influenced externally. Besides, they may have made opted for euthanasia since they were not provided with other options such as palliative care. In this case, the obligations are weightier than the values. The tone and passion evident in the arguments of the proponents are indicative of a strong will and obligation to protect the rights of the terminally ill, which evidently transcends the boundaries of their values and ideals (Sjöstrand et al. 225-30).
While the right to autonomy ranks top of the reasons, some parties support euthanasia due to the fact that everyone deserves to die with dignity. The ACLU beholds that everyone should die in a humane and dignified manner.
The values of respect, altruism, personal responsibility, accountability, and understanding are among the probable informants of the decision to support euthanasia. Respect entails an attitude of high regard while accountability involves being responsible for one’s actions and decisions. Owing to their understanding of the situation, they probably feel accountable suppose a patient is left to die without dignity, which they seem to accord utmost respect. The portion of proponents that evoke the need for a dignified demise as their basis for supporting euthanasia feels mandated to ensure anyone maintains their dignity even in death. They feel a profound obligation and urge to act to save the patient from mortified deaths.
The consequence of this argument is that doctors may use it as a cover-up for their unprofessionalism (Sjöstrand et al. 225-30). For instance, in cases where a doctor commits a fatal mistake that may cost a patient’s life, the doctor may propose euthanasia as a way of ending the life of the respective patient so that they evade the responsibility for their actions. Since they play a significant part in the decision leading to euthanasia, such doctors may misuse their powers and mislead the guardians of the patient into thinking that the patient requires euthanasia. Besides, more patients may have increased access to euthanasia given the fact that they are given the choice to have or end their life. On the same note, those diagnosed with terminal illnesses will be cognizant of the fact that they have a choice and can make it during the early stages of their sickness to prevent the likelihood of a financial burden on their relatives. Despite the positivity or negativity of the consequence, the patient ought to be left to have the final say.
Unlike in the first case, this particular section of supporters assumes that the patient cares more about their dignity than life (Pereira). In certain cases, the patient would prefer to have their life over a dignified death. Therefore, the values weigh more than the obligations. The respect for a patient’s dignity and the feeling of accountability, among other values, override the proponents’ obligations of protecting terminally ill patients from undignified deaths (Sjöstrand et al. 225-30).
Ruggiero Analysis of Opponents
Notably, medical organizations and religious factions are some of the opponents of active euthanasia. The arguments forwarded by these factions are the typical aspects underlying moral and ethical stipulations of medicine and the medical practice. One of those arguments is that the legalization of euthanasia is likely to open doors for other unethical practices like its practice on the un-voluntary patients.
The medical detractors of euthanasia evoke their values of transcendence, integrity, respect, empathy, compassion, and diligence to reinforce their opposition to euthanasia. Diligence refers to cautiousness when dealing with delicate situations while integrity defines the strict adherence to the set moral prescriptions and ethical codes of conduct. Transcendence, in this case, is the unwavering spirit to surpass the usual limits or break the set bounds in order to serve the needs of the patients. However, among all these personal ideals, transcendence triumphs over the others.
Doctors opposing euthanasia believe that they have the responsibility to give their all to the patient without giving up. Thus, instead of euthanasia, they propose palliative care. The belief they hold to go beyond the limits of their job prescriptions is the key factor that drives them to oppose euthanasia. Besides, this group believes that legalizing voluntary euthanasia may automatically allow for involuntary euthanasia (Pereira 2).
As such, their respect for the sanctity of human life bars them from supporting any form of euthanasia, especially without strong regulatory frameworks to monitor the practice. In this case, the primary obligation of the medical fraternity is the medical requirement for doctors to provide the best health services to the patients and safeguard the precious gift of human life (Pereira). Even the non-medical opponents of euthanasia understand that the role of the doctors to deliver exemplary services to patients and ensure they only die from natural causes and not induced death.
Therefore, the obligation to protect life, transcend the set boundaries and ensure a patient only dies naturally are some of the arguments championed by the opponents of euthanasia. Even then, the obligation to protect life seems the major reason behind the actions of the opponents.
The consequence of this perspective is that it may deny the patient their right to autonomy and dignity in death. It should be understood that when a doctor fails to approve euthanasia, it cannot be administered to a terminally ill patient unless there is immense proof that the patient needs ‘mercy killing.' Therefore, as a result of their values and obligations, a doctor may reject a proposal for euthanasia on a patient with the hope of saving their life. When that fails, the patient may die in a manner they would not opt for even after losing their autonomy.
In this case, the primary assumption is that every form of illness is medically manageable, and palliative care is the best alternative for euthanasia. On the contrary, palliative care is expensive and may not always yield desirable results. Besides, doctors can only do so much. Some diseases are beyond their abilities, thus, trying to contain them may end in undignified deaths.