Paternalistic interventions and competence

Paternalism is in fact, a kind of behavior that is intended to benefit persons without their consent and this type of behavior contains the element of coercion or interference that is justified for the good of the individual. On the other hand, the autonomy model of clinical decision making is firmly grounded in the dignity of humans and this view strongly holds that to violate somebody's autonomy is to violate his humanity and an attempt to treat him as an object. Western medicine gives significant importance to competent patient. Paternalistic interventions are only applicable to incompetent patients. If a competent patient rationally refuses treatment, it is not one's duty to treat him and not treating cannot be named as killing

Difference between voluntary active and voluntary passive euthanasia: An ethico-legal perspective

Death and Dying are an important part of the development process and especially death is an event that occurs at the end of the dying process. But the management of death is a controversial topic because efforts to postpone or hasten death have medical, legal and ethical ramifications. Euthanasia, the act of painlessly ending the lives of individuals who are suffering from an incurable disease, has always been considered illegal and immoral act, however, voluntary passive euthanasia may be considered moral

Autonomy versus sanctity of life

Abstract: Over the last fifty years, people have become increasingly concerned that the dying process is, too, often needlessly protected by medical technology and is consequently marked by intolerable pain and dignity. This useless prolongation of life invites a debate called euthanasia i.e. the act of bringing about the death of a hopelessly ill and suffering person in a relatively quick and painless way for reasons of mercy. The autonomy model of clinical decision making is firmly grounded in the dignity of human persons i.e. individuals are at liberty to make their own medical treatment decisions. The notions of individual's rights and autonomy, no doubt, have been gathering strength in our age. But, the patient's autonomy model does not give sufficient attention to the impact of disease on the patient's capacities for autonomy. Medicine should restore the patient's autonomy but autonomy argument does not have any standing in the face of the sanctity of life, which is endorsed by all the major religions of the world

Pain at the end of life and its palliative care

Pain is a common problem at the end of life. Pain, no doubt, is a complex phenomenon that includes psychological, behavioral and social components. Mostly, the fear of pain is the common reason to support the idea of euthanasia. The experience of chronic pain is different from that of acute pain. Anxiety is replaced by despair. Hopelessness and frustration are felt and suffering is seen as endless. Treatments after treatment have fielded no relief. Despite comprehensive palliative care, some dying patients experience distressing symptoms that cannot be adequately relieved. The doctrine of double effect, the justification for palliative sedation, permits physicians to provide high doses sedatives to relieve suffering, provided that the intention is not to cause the patient's death. The role of the intention cannot be ignored in this doctrine. Physicians must understand and document which actions are consistent with an intention to relieve symptoms rather than to hasten death. Patient's consent is quite essential for palliative sedation