It is clear that the utmost importance in any medical context is the relationship between the healthcare practitioner and the patient. The duty of a physician is to adhere to certain principles of medical ethics namely the principles of respect for autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. By examining the case study involving Dr. Nancy Morrison, one can observe that these principles are often ambiguous when referring to the issue of whether she committed voluntary active euthanasia or nonvoluntary active euthanasia. Thus, the thesis will aim to exemplify that ultimately Dr. Nancy Morrison was culpable for her actions.
To give some context to the issue, Paul Mills was a 65-year-old individual suffering from terminal esophageal cancer. …show more content…
There was a question of whether Mills was aware and conscious of the suffering during this time, and evidently, was given a round of unsuccessful pain-killers and anesthetics to prevent the continuation of this apparent suffering. At 2:52 pm, Dr. Morrison entered his room and injected a lethal dose of potassium chloride, instantly killing him. In 1997, Nancy Morrison was charged with first-degree murder, but then was let off and reprimanded instead due to the uncertainty of what truly caused Paul Mills’ death. Ultimately, this case is questioning whether or not Dr. Morrison inherently committed murder through non-voluntary active euthanasia or whether she voluntarily committed active euthanasia.
First off, Utilitarian logic is aimed at analyzing the costs and benefits of the action. Individuals typically weight the outcomes and choose the course of action that is expected to have the best results (Fisher, 2013, p.13). Nancy Morrison decided to enact the principle of utility when she committed voluntary active euthanasia as she believed it would maximize the benefit and minimize the suffering. Voluntary active euthanasia is defined by Dan W. Brock (1992) as the direct act of killing, done through the consent of the patient. In the case for
To give some context to the issue, Paul Mills was a 65-year-old individual suffering from terminal esophageal cancer. …show more content…
There was a question of whether Mills was aware and conscious of the suffering during this time, and evidently, was given a round of unsuccessful pain-killers and anesthetics to prevent the continuation of this apparent suffering. At 2:52 pm, Dr. Morrison entered his room and injected a lethal dose of potassium chloride, instantly killing him. In 1997, Nancy Morrison was charged with first-degree murder, but then was let off and reprimanded instead due to the uncertainty of what truly caused Paul Mills’ death. Ultimately, this case is questioning whether or not Dr. Morrison inherently committed murder through non-voluntary active euthanasia or whether she voluntarily committed active euthanasia.
First off, Utilitarian logic is aimed at analyzing the costs and benefits of the action. Individuals typically weight the outcomes and choose the course of action that is expected to have the best results (Fisher, 2013, p.13). Nancy Morrison decided to enact the principle of utility when she committed voluntary active euthanasia as she believed it would maximize the benefit and minimize the suffering. Voluntary active euthanasia is defined by Dan W. Brock (1992) as the direct act of killing, done through the consent of the patient. In the case for