Introduction
It is important to note that euthanasia is a highly intricate and complex ethical issue, which requires a thorough analysis and understanding in order to draw any form of evidenced conclusions. Euthanasia for children should be allowed only if a child is suffering from extreme pain, has zero chance for recovery, the pain is unmanageable, and both parents and the child consent. An additional condition is that the logical assumptions made for the issue cannot be used anywhere outside the domain of a child’s right to die, with a strict prohibition of any form of extension in the future.
Issue
It is important to note that the issue of a child’s right to die is a highly intricate, controversial, and complex problem. Its ethicality and implications are even more concerning to physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia of adults since there is an additional element of consent. On the one hand, there are diseases and conditions that cause unbearable and extreme pain with no prospects of recovery or improvement. In other words, a great deal of suffering is experienced by a child with no hope for potential healing, and no form of treatment can ease the pain. On the other hand, there is the problem of abuse of a child’s right to die if it is made legal. In addition, there is a question of whether or not children can give consent or make decisions about ending their lives. Allowing euthanasia for children carries a slippery slope ramification as well, where the logic can be twisted or extended to be more inclusive of cases where such a practice is unethical.
Facts
Euthanasia is the practice of killing or allowing someone to die in order for the affected individual to avoid suffering from pain associated with a terminal illness or incurable condition. A child’s right to die is an argument that children have a right to avoid pain and suffering by having access to euthanasia. It is a form of extending the right-to-die concept to a minor. For example, Belgium extended it is already practiced right to die to children (McDonald-Gibson par. 1; BBC par. 1). The legal change resulted in a backlash from the critics, which indicated that it was a major slippery slope issue (Bartunek par. 1). In addition, it is critical to distinguish between active and passive euthanasia practices. The latter refers to allowing a child to die by not providing him or her with the life-sustaining support needed. The active one is about injecting some form of the lethal drug in order to cause death.
There are several conditions involved in the Belgium case, which means that only a small fraction of dire cases can exercise the child’s right to die. As with many euthanasia conditions, a person must have an incurable, unmanageable, and untreatable condition that causes immense pain and suffering. The list of such conditions is highly short, and the impacted population of children is a tiny fraction. From 2002, only five children received euthanasia, and all of these cases were causing intense pain with no hope for future recovery or pain management (McDonald-Gibson par. 1). When it comes to the effectiveness of passive versus active euthanasia, the former tends to extend the suffering for longer.
Analysis
On the basis of the facts provided above, it is relevant to address the compatibility of the practice within the context of healthcare as well as ethics in general. Firstly, the most important reasons include the impossibility of a cure, terminal illness, severe pain, and the right to die with dignity. Therefore, the former process adheres to the principles of patient autonomy and assists him or her in ending his or her life in a less painful manner. The four fundamental ethical principles in medicine include autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice (Pettersson et al. 2). The cause of the problem and its persistence is manifested in the fact that euthanasia is adherent with autonomy and beneficence.
Secondly, the most relevant ethical theories are utilitarianism and deontology. Virtue ethics is not applicable because it is the virtuousness of a person that determines whether or not the action is right, which is impractical to determine (Pettersson et al. 1). In accordance with utilitarianism, some argue that “permitting physicians to engage in assisted suicide would ultimately cause more harm than good” (American Medical Association par. 4). Therefore, the net harm outweighs the net benefit. In the case of deontology, the duties of a medical professional include “do no harm,” beneficence, justice, and respect for autonomy. Euthanasia of children adheres poorly to the autonomy principle but violates non-maleficence and does not fully comply with beneficence. Therefore, utilitarianism is more inclined to support the stance against the practice, and deontology is questionable due to children’s inability to consent.
Thirdly, the slippery slope argument outlines that whenever foundational logical assumptions are accepted, it is only a matter of time before the same concept becomes extended to even more controversial practices. For example, if children’s ability to consent is recognized and accepted, this creates a slippery slope to extend such an assumption to other issues. This would mean that if a child can decide when and how to end his or her life, then he or she can decide what happens in his or her life as well. A radical hypothetical case would be that children have autonomy in other areas as well, such as determining their treatment and making life choices without their parent’s consent. It is a borderline slippery slope toward the legalization of pedophilia, child marriage, and sex transition from an early age. Thus, in this regard, it is categorically unacceptable to recognize children’s capability to consent.
Fourthly, a more realistic argument can be made in the case of parental consent supplicated with a child’s consent. In other words, both parents and children need to want euthanasia as a last resort. However, it is still problematic because parents would be able to exploit the practice to essentially conduct extremely late ‘abortion’ post birth. This fear and concern are substantiated within the realm of slippery slope precautions since today’s impossibility can result in tomorrow’s acceptability if the fundamental logical elements are accepted. Although the case of Belgium is a clearly humane and compassionate one, the logical basis is already made. The law is strict and restrictive in utilizing the practice, but the critics’ concerns are legitimate as well.
Conclusion
In conclusion, euthanasia needs to be considered as a viable option only under specific circumstances, which leave no alternative option for the patient’s dignity and well-being. In order to make PAS ethically sound, the net benefit must outweigh the net harm. In addition, for terminally ill patients in pain, it is adherent to beneficence if euthanasia is removing pain. Thus, the best solution is to allow the practice nationwide but under strict conditions. It is a form of mercy killing since it has an ethical basis and adheres to medical principles.
Works Cited
American Medical Association. “Physician-Assisted Suicide.” AMA, 2022, Web.
Bartunek, Robert-Jan. “Belgium Surprised at International Euthanasia Backlash.” Reuters, Web.
BBC. “Belgium’s Parliament Votes through Child Euthanasia.” BBC News, Web.
McDonald-Gibson, Charlotte. “Belgium Extends Euthanasia Law to Kids.” Time, Web.
Pettersson, Mona, et al. “Ethical Competence in DNR decisions –A Qualitative Study of Swedish Physicians and Nurses Working in Hematology and Oncology Care.” BMC Medical Ethics, vol. 19, no. 63, 2018, pp. 1-12.