The problem of Ms. Robaczynski and Mr. Gessner directly relates to euthanasia debate. Euthanasia means "easy death" that involves a murder of a person who suffers from an incurable disease. Is such death a good idea? Do others have the right to make such solution? Is there a limit for artificially sustaining or prolonging life? How to reconcile the patient's agony and torment the conscience of those who are involved in his killing? On one hand, Ms. Robaczynski helped the patient not to suffer, on the other hand, her actions were illegal and she committed murder. The main idea is that Ms. Robaczynski acted in a wrong way because she had no power to decide the fate of another person.
In fact, Ms. Robaczynski violated the Hippocratic Oath because she killed the person through disconnecting the respirator of a comatose patient. The oath proclaims that "I will not give somebody a deadly drug and not show the way for such plan." Thus, it proves that euthanasia is a direct violation of the Hippocratic Oath even in the countries where it is legal. Furthermore, this procedure of active killing contradicts the human being right to live, and its legalization must first solve the controversial question of the relationship of human rights to life and responsibility for deprivation of life. In the analyzed case study, Ms. Robaczynski aimed to help the patient, but violated ethical norms of physician’s rights and abilities.
It should be noted that euthanasia is prohibited in the USA. At least, the right to conduct such procedures is not legally established. Some lawyers believe that neither the public and law nor even the health care system is ready to accept the legalization of euthanasia, though many cases of so called “easy death” were held in the USA. I do realize that Mr. Gessner suffered badly and Ms. Robaczynski tried to protect him, but he didn’t give his consent to such actions. This situation looks like a real murder because nobody can predict whom Ms. Robaczynski will «help» in future. What will happen, for example, if she decides to facilitate another person in such a way? Hence, such cases are inappropriate because all people should respect the law and must not commit illegal actions.
Classic examples of euthanasia were widely present in ancient Sparta when people and babies with physical disabilities were killed. The only main difference between modern and Spartan methods was that babies could not defend themselves. Thus, I do not believe that such behavior is appropriate nowadays because some nurse could kill a patient who could be treated. The biggest problem is that euthanasia as a way to resolve problems with the terminally ill people doesn’t allow making new medical discoveries and searching for alternative treatments. If to analyze all aspects of this case, the only correct conclusion is that legalization of euthanasia will result in more contradictions and differences than before. It is absolutely wrong idea to actively kill another person because it is unacceptable from a moral and legal point of view; moreover, this phenomenon runs counter to the social foundations of any democratic society and cannot exist in the social and legal state.
Limited time Offer
In my opinion, deed of Ms. Robaczynski cannot be viewed differently if Mr. Gessener had asked to be disconnected from his respirator because such actions are illegal in the USA. First of all, there is a need to clarify procedural moments of rendering a medical opinion about the fatal diagnosis, which will be one of the reasons for committing euthanasia that was absent in this case. There was a need to conduct a consultation with doctors of different directions for making such decision on the incurable disease. However, all these actions might be useless because euthanasia is illegal, and Ms. Robaczynski had no right to take Mr. Gessener’s life.
Undoubtedly, nobody can deprive other people of their lives. Wonders do happen, and all physicians face them even in the most hopeless cases. The physician is not God. He has to decide how to treat a patient, not who has the right to live. No matter how critical the patient's condition is, there is always a chance, and it would be wrong to lose it. Contrary to that, Ms. Robaczynski acted like God and decided that she could decide whether a person should continue to live or die.
From the other side, Mr. Gessener suffered, and everybody knew that. However, there are the rules, laws, and regulations that establish a social order and instruct people how to act in certain situations. For instance, the Bible proclaims that everybody has his life path, and everything has a meaning. If a person suffers, he has to live with this pain. No one gets pleasure from suffering, but it does not justify the desire to decide that a person is ready to die. Often God's thoughts are heard by the man through his suffering, and euthanasia is the way to usurp the power of God. Thus, Ms. Robaczynski was obliged to follow the Code of Ethics for physicians, Hippocratic Oath, and Bible.
In conclusion, this problem has a double meaning because a prolongation of life of a dying person can hardly be called humane. But such practice exists in all the countries even without additional legislation. If a person has decided to stop the treatment, no one will force him to abandon its decision. Considering the pros and cons of this case, Ms. Robaczynski committed legally wrong actions, because she simply murdered her patient without having any legal right to do this.
Related Case Study essays