Pros And Cons Of Involuntary Passive Euthanasia

Euthanasia is a widely debated ethical topic. Many believe that it is unethical to allow a patient to take their own life, and others believe that a person has a right to decide to end their life. There are many different forms of euthanasia; voluntary and involuntary; passive and active. Involuntary passive euthanasia is perhaps the most ethically questionable form. Unger states that “involuntary euthanasia involves the euthanizing of incompetent persons or persons who cannot voice an opinion or state a choice” (2015, “Euthanasia”, para.1). A passive form of this would be withholding life-saving treatment from a patient (BBC, 2014). Health care providers may choose withhold treatment is they feel the patient would not benefit long-term. Surprisingly, there can be very little precautions in place to protect patients from passive involuntary euthanasia. Why is it that in a field where the focus is on saving lives, providers are able to take a life without consent?

Receiving consent from patients is stressed for health care providers.

They must provide informed consent, or risk medical negligence. They must also receive voluntary consent from a patient before any medical intervention. (Robertson, 2015, pp. 82). Therefore, involuntary passive euthanasia goes against the foundation of health care ethics. Involuntary euthanasia is only used in cases where the person is unable “to make a meaningful choice between living and dying, and an appropriate person takes the decision on their behalf” (BBC, 2014). Why is then that patients who are competent to make decisions are euthanized without consent? A health care provider’s judgement of a patient’s quality of life often comes into

play.
One’s judgement of quality of life is unique. Some may see good quality of life as a lack of illness, and others may see it as remaining in a good mental and spiritual state despite illness. Unfortunately for patients, their health care providers may not agree on what good quality of life is. There have been laws passed in some parts of the world that prevent health care providers from making life or death decisions based on their opinion of a patient’s quality of life. In Oklahoma, an act was passed that stated “law will prevent health care providers from denying that treatment on the basis of a view that treats extending the life of an elderly, disabled, or terminally ill individual as of lower value than extending the life of an individual who is younger, nondisabled, or not terminally ill” (Smith, 2015). This law prevents health care providers from being the ones who made the decision to determine if quality of life is good enough for the patient to continue living. Although there are several laws preventing involuntary passive euthanasia, unfortunately, policies allowing the prevention of life-saving care for patients with “low quality of life” are becoming more and more common.
Health care providers may not wish to provide care if they feel that the efforts will be wasted on an “unmeaningful existence” (Nolan, n.d, para. 8). For example, the Alexian Brothers Hospital in California put in place a policy for withholding treatment. The policy stated “any treatment or testing other than comfort care would be denied to patients…who suffered from terminal illness with neurological problems ... or other devastating disease” (Nolan, n.d, para. 2). In health care, the main priority is the health of a patient and respecting the informed decisions of a patient. If this is the case, why should health care providers be able to refuse treatment simply because they believe that their life will not improve based on their own standards? Everyone has a different idea on quality of life. One’s quality of life can be evaluated only by the individual, not an outside party.
Involuntary passive euthanasia goes against the most basic values of health care. It lacks consent, informed patients, and morality. In Canada, withholding or withdrawing care is to be based on the patient’s instructions prior to them becoming incompetent to make decisions. If no previous decisions had been made, a health care provider would act in the best interests of the patient (Unger, 2015, “Euthanasia”, para. 4). If the job of a health care provider is to act in the best interests of patients to improve their health, why are they taking their lives? Patients unconditionally place their lives in the hands of health care providers, presumably trustworthy people. It is unethical to break that trust by taking their life without consent. More laws need to be put in place to protect patients from this injustice. Euthanasia should not be considered unless the patient is competent enough to give informed consent. Really, who is any one person to decide who lives and who dies?