Medical Euthanasia from Medical Ethics: A Very Short Introduction

Euthanasia in the medical field is when a physician intentionally kills or permits the death of a patient for the patient's benefit. This practice contradicts one of the oldest moral tenants in history "thou shalt not kill". However, in the medical field, under some circumstances, this practice is morally required by two principles: respect for a patient's autonomy and the promotion of the patient's best interest. Most countries put high value in respecting an individual's autonomy. In regards to the respect for the patient's autonomy, in the medical field, a patient has the right to refuse treatment even if the treatment would be life-saving. If a physician were to violate this right and ignore the patient's autonomy by administering treatment against the patient's wishes, even if it were to save a life, this would be a violation of the patient's bodily integrity and legally be termed as "battery". Considering the patient's best interests, most doctors, nurses, and even relatives believe it can be in the patient's, or loved ones, best interest to die. Situations like this could possibly occur when patients are faced with an incurable and fatal disease has reached the final stages and would only have days to live without medicine. Even if medicine could prolong the patient's life to weeks, depending on the quality of life during treatment, euthanasia may still be the better option for the patient. In a situation such as this, would you administer euthanasia to the patient or let the medicine prolong their life without quality?

Passive euthanasia is when a physician allows for a patient to die by withholding treatment at the patient's wishes. In most countries, passive euthanasia is widely accepted on two grounds: the patient wishes it and it is in the patient's best interests. This brings us to an example of a real situation where the practice of euthanasia was administered by the physician Dr. Cox. Dr. Cox was presented with the 70-year-old patient, Lillian Boyes. This patient had a very severe form of rheumatoid arthritis that presented with pain beyond the reach of painkillers. It came down to the patient only has a few days or weeks to live when she asked Dr. Cox to kill her. Out of compassion for the patient and regarding the patient's will, Dr. Cox administered a fatal dose of potassium chloride. The result of this being Lillian Boyes death and Dr. Cox being charged and found guilty of attempted murder. The judge directed the jury in saying that even though the patient may have been beyond recall and wished to die if Dr. Cox administered the dose with intent to kill her, he is guilty of the offense he is charged with. This court case clearly stated that active euthanasia, where the physician performs an action that results in the patient's death, is illegal and potentially murder in English law. If you were in the same position as Dr. Cox, what would you have done? Would you have administered the fatal dose, knowing you would be found guilty of attempted murder or would you have let Lillian Boyes suffer until she inevitably died within a few days or weeks?

Questions:

1. What ancient tenant does the practice of euthanasia contradict?

2. What are the two principles that would morally require euthanasia under some circumstances?

3. What is the difference between passive and active euthanasia?

4. Which did Dr. Cox employ with his patient, Lillian Boyes?

5. What was Dr. Cox found guilty of and what was the reasoning behind the verdict?