Above is an Australian commercial regarding choice. However the company’s pro-choice, voluntary euthanasia campaign was banned by the Australian regulating authority before it could be broadcasted. Although many regard euthanasia as actively promoting suicide, I beg to differ.
Somewhere between the failures to treat a terminally ill individual and the use of aggressive treatment to prolong the dying patient’s life, the doctor must be responsible for maximizing the patient’s comfort and dignity in his dying days. This also includes the doctor’s compliance with the patient’s will.
In the patient whose fate is unfortunately determined, the balance between minimizing pain, fear, suffering and death should be weighted towards pain relief. It would make sense to administer a type of medication that would relieve the suffering of the individual even if the side effects of the drug means more suffering. Since the primary goal of the doctor is to relieve pain, the morally right thing to do would be to administer the drug. However, if the case were extremely severe, where the pain can only be temporarily subsided by a large dose of medication, providing narcotics would be for nought, knowing the patient would just absorb the drug momentarily and relapse back into unbearable pain. In my opinion, to allow a patient to experience unbearable pain and suffering is unethical.
In terms of legal concerns, one might be worried about the legal liabilities of the doctor. I believe that doctors should do whatever is necessary to