Why doctors and nurses must not kill patients

Nursing and Euthanasia: a Review of Argument-Based Ethics Literature

This article gives an overview of the nursing ethics arguments on euthanasia in general, and on nurses' involvement in euthanasia in particular, through an argument-based literature review. An in-depth study of these arguments in this literature will enable nurses to engage in the euthanasia debate. We critically appraised 41 publications published between January 1987 and June 2007. Nursing ethics arguments on (nurses' involvement in) euthanasia are guided primarily by the principles of respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice. Ethical arguments related to the nursing profession are described. From a care perspective, we discuss arguments that evaluate to what degree euthanasia can be considered positively or negatively as a form of good nursing care. Most arguments in the principle-, profession- and care-orientated approaches to nursing ethics are used both pro and contra euthanasia in general, and nurses' involvement in euthanasia in particular.

Medicine, psychiatry and euthanasia: an argument against mandatory psychiatric review

OBJECTIVE

The paper critically appraises the argument that requests for active assistance to die should be subject to mandatory psychiatric assessment.

METHOD

The argument for mandatory psychiatric assessment is usually supported by an appeal to the need for safeguards against errors and omissions in both the diagnosis of psychiatric conditions affecting the terminally ill and the exploration of the meanings of their requests. This intuitively appealing view is challenged through a broader analysis which examines connections between medicine's traditional adherence to the moral distinction between acts and omissions and the following issues: the historical relationship between medical practice and dying, the recent development of research into treatment-withdrawal decisions, the scientific status of psychiatry, the logic of rationality and decision-making competence.

RESULTS

The analysis reveals a number of hitherto unexamined and unacknowledged influences which would make psychiatric review of requests for assisted death a much less objective and impartial process than is assumed.

CONCLUSION

Mandatory psychiatric review is an instance of the medicalisation of death and dying which could abridge the freedom of certain individuals to make decisions about their deaths.

The response of health care workers to AIDS patients' requests for euthanasia

This paper reports on research into the practice of euthanasia amongst Australian health care professionals specializing in HIV/AIDS. It draws on data from thirty-nine semi-structured interviews carried out in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Canberra with physicians, general practitioners, hospital and community nurses, therapists and community workers. Using a qualitative methodology, the study seeks to identify how (illegal) euthanasia is currently practised, the degrees of involvement, the various forms that involvement takes, and the social relations which provide the context for involvement. In this paper we outline three categories of 'doers' to illustrate the range of attitudes and practices concerning euthanasia. This 'typology' carries a number of implications for recent policy debates over the legalisation of euthanasia. In particular it illustrates, at least within the context of AIDS care, the fragmentation of consensus over euthanasia amongst health care workers, the reality of current illegal euthanasia practices, and the limitations of a prohibitionist policy. While the legalisation of euthanasia within a regulatory framework is sometimes portrayed as an extreme or 'radical' response to terminal illness, the data presented in this paper suggest that prohibitionism is also radical in its failure to control euthanasia practice.

Euthanasia: wrong problem, wrong answer

The ability of medical technology to prolong life has created unease with current law governing the protection of life. Adopting and advertising standards of approved medical practice in this area may remove the perceived need for euthanasia.

Velcro on the slippery slope: the role of psychiatry in active voluntary euthanasia

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the paper is to determine the role that psychiatrists should play in legislation that establishes a right to active voluntary euthanasia (AVE).

METHOD

One version of the "slippery slope" argument, usually invoked against the legalisation of AVE, is recast as an argument for the introduction of strong safeguards in any future AVE legislation. The literature surrounding the prevalence of psychiatric illnesses in the terminally ill, physicians' ability to identify such illnesses and the aetiology of suicide in the terminally ill is examined.

RESULTS

The strength of the slippery slope argument, combined with the poor ability of general physicians to diagnose psychiatric illness in the terminally ill, demands that any legislation allowing AVE should require a mandatory psychiatric review of the patient requesting euthanasia.

CONCLUSIONS

Any legislation adopted that establishes a right to active voluntary euthanasia should include a mandatory psychiatric review of the person requesting euthanasia and a cooling off period before the request is acceded to. In addition, the discovery of a serious mental illness ought to disqualify the affected person from the right to AVE until that illness resolves.

Nurses' definitions of and attitudes towards euthanasia

A major impetus for this study was recent literature that assumed that nurses' definitions of euthanasia and consequent opinions on decision making are unproblematic. The purpose of this study was to identify nurses' definitions of and attitudes towards euthanasia. Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted with nurses working in a variety of clinical practice settings. The majority of nurses could distinguish between active and passive euthanasia, but it was only in terms of active euthanasia that the debate was seen as significant. It was considered that the term passive euthanasia, particularly in relation to withdrawal of treatment, has served to confuse the real debate centring around active euthanasia. Only two participants were in favour of active euthanasia, but emphasized the need for 'a community of shared responsibility' in decision making. The major finding of the study was the commitment of all participants to caring for and ensuring the comfort of the dying patient. The concepts of ordinary and extraordinary forms of treatment and heroic measures were seen as worthy of debate in the context of dying with dignity rather than of euthanasia. There was an associated aversion to inappropriate heroic measures, which were perceived as prolonging death and interfering with 'dying with dignity'. The development of a personal and moral/ethical stance (in relation to euthanasia) was shown to be an evolving process embedded in a caring philosophy and emphasizing the contextual nature of providing appropriate care.