The specific sociological problem that is the topic of this research paper is euthanasia. The purpose of this research is to identify the variables associated with euthanasia. It also discusses the variables associated with various types of euthanasia and suicide. I believe that elderly suicide is an example of active euthanasia, and therefore it is important to discuss the issue to have a better understanding of the social problem of euthanasia and suicide.
I will also discuss variables that influence whether a person supports euthanasia or not, such as religious belief, gender, age, region, educational level, and marital status that influences how a person views the issue. I will also discuss the definitions of death. I will discuss the ethical and moral aspects of the problem of euthanasia. I will try to use Emile Durkheims social integration theory to explain the causes of active euthanasia, and suicide in general.
I will also use Charles Tittles defiance category of deviance, which represents escape or withdrawal from active participation to social relationships or normative obligations to society. I want to integrate both Durkheims egoistic type of suicide, which applies to those that are inadequately integrated into society, and Tittles defiance category of deviance. I believe that both show a lack of social integration can increase the likelihood of suicide, and active euthanasia by those that lack coping skills, suffer from depression, have mental problems, and no longer value life.
The lack of attachment to society and withdrawal from active participation in social relationships or social positions, which can increase the likelihood of active euthanasia or suicide, includes the following: 1) problems with the family, such as divorce, or the lose of a loved one; 2) interpersonal problems; 3) lack of problem solving; 4) depression; 5) drug and alcohol use; 6) health problems. These problems can influence the thought processes and coping behaviors that can lead to an increased likelihood of suicidal behavior.
Euthanasia is the practice of painlessly ending the lives of people who have incurable, painful, or distressing diseases or handicaps. It may occur when incurably ill people ask their physician–or a friend or relative–to put them to death or to allow them to die. It may also occur when ill people ask others to help them commit suicide. Euthanasia is sometimes called mercy killing. Euthanasia is a very controversial issue. Some people believe patients should have an unqualified right to die.
Others consider all forms of euthanasia to be murder or suicide and thus immoral. Still others approve of some forms of euthanasia and disapprove of others. Euthanasia means mercy killing to some, and natural death without the aid of life extending, or death prolonging medical devices. It means good death, based on the fact that it ends suffering when the quality of life becomes unbearable. The two main perspectives on euthanasia are those who support the sanctity of life, verses those favoring a quality of life viewpoint.
The sanctity of life perspective is imbedded in the Western Judeo-Christian tradition that values life as a right given by God, and that man has no right to play God by deciding who lives and who dies. They oppose abortion, suicide, and euthanasia. Those supporting a quality of life perespective believe that when life no longer has a quality or meaning due to a terminal illness, or for some a disease like Downs Syndrome see death as preferable to life (Leming, &Dickenson, p. 212-214). Active and passive euthanasia are the two main types of euthanasia that have been debated for decades around the world.
Many people oppose active euthanasia, such as the injection of a lethal drug, because it requires one person to deliberately kill another person. Fewer people oppose passive euthanasia– the withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment– for patients who request it. Passive euthanasia involves a situation where a physician goes by a protocol that no action or medical intervention to allow a natural death to be hastened. This type can involve a physician to not use (CPR) cardiopulmonary resuscitation that was introduced in 1960 and is used to save many lives every year.
CPR is used routinely by doctors in hospitals without considering the patients chances for survival, or without considering the quality of life the person may live, such as having brain damage. Those favoring the quality of life perspective oppose any medical devices being used to bring a person back from the edge of death. They think that those who do not want to live if they suffer life threatening injuries, are terminally ill, or in need of life sustaining devices, such as the respirator, should have a right to have their death wish accepted.
If the person is unconscious and want to die, they must have a living will that expresses their wish that no extraordinary means by way of life extending medical devices will be used to prolong their suffering. But what if the persons family is opposed to the patients living will, to the patients death wish, then what should the doctor do. It is clearly left to the discretion of the doctor whether to accept a living will, or a death wish by a patient.
All doctors are expected to use ordinary means to preserve the life of a patient by all medicines, treatments, and operations that offer a reasonable hope of benefit for the patient and that can be used without excessive expense, pain, and other inconveniences. Extraordinary means to preserve life basically means that any treatment, medicines, and operations that cannot be done without excessive expense, pain, or other inconvenience, or that would not offer a reasonable hope of benefit (Leming, & Dickenson. p. 216-7).
But the problem with this is that what is extraordinary measures in the past may be ordinary now due the ever changing and advancing technology of the medical profession. Who decides what the definitions mean, such as reasonable hope, or excessive pain, because persons can disagree on their meaning, with some seeing CPR as an ordinary, cheap, and very effective way to save lives, while others may view it as an excessive, painful, life prolonging technique that is not needed if the quality of the persons life would be unbearable.
One problem is that of cultural lag, which results in static definitions of biological life and death being applied to new medical technological advances that change require new definitions to define when a person dies, such as the issue of brain death. The definition of death will determine if a person is pronounced dead before death has actually occurred. Doctor Paul A. Bryne says that no one should be pronounced dead unless and until there is destruction of at least the major vital systems of the body, i. e. the circulatory and respiratory systems, and the entire brain.
He says that that the Uniform Determination of Death Act calls for irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, but that this is not what is occurring in practice. He says that the Annals of the New York Academy of Science (ANYAS 9, 313, pg. 65, 1978) found that only 4 percent of the patients in a Collaborative Study would have met the criteria of a dying brain stem, which means that 96% of the patients did not and do not have a dying brain stem.
This means that 96% of so-called brain dead patients still have a functioning brain, and this leads to the removal of life support (i. passive euthanasia) such as removal of a respirator that causes the heart to stop beating, which leads the patient to become dead. But once again who defines quality of life, and who does it apply to. Does it only apply to rational adults that consent to euthanasia due to pain and suffering and not due to personal considerations like being a financial burden, depression, or loneliness. Or does it apply to anyone those in power say is unfit to live, such as the mentally ill, the disabled, or children with diseases.
