Euthanasia- A threat to the welfare or an opportunity?

In parallel with medical developments, the debate on euthanasia has gained new momentumin the Western world. Many countries have now legalized various forms of euthanasia, whileothers are investigating the issue. Euthanasia has been described as a difficult issue with manydimensions and worldwide there is no consensus among philosophers. The question ofeuthanasia may be relevant in the various cases where patients suffer and experienceunnecessary pain due to various diseases. The consequence of a bodily pain can lead toexistential thoughts about the meaning of life in these people. People who cannot find ameaningful continuation with their lives can express a wish to end their lives througheuthanasia. A literature review has been undertaken and various databases have been used inorder to search for scientific articles, debates and philosophical books. The purpose of thisthesis is to describe the state of knowledge about euthanasia and whether we should alloweuthanasia in Sweden. Four main arguments for and against euthanasia have been identified:1) the right to life, 2) the principle of autonomy, 3) the patient's best interests, and 4)euthanasia as a substitute for palliative care and the slippery slope argument.It is true that euthanasia poses a direct threat to the right to life and the sanctity of life. At thesame time the right to life can also be interpreted as having self-determination to end one's lifeat any time. A ban on euthanasia may benefit the right to life but it could mean an unwantedlife for many patients who suffer. A ban could also lead to a violation of personal integrity ofthe patient where they may experience not being taken seriously.There are, of course, several concerns and criticisms directed to a legalization of euthanasia.For example, patients who request euthanasia may be in a vulnerable position due to theirillness and/or lack of social or economic resources and therefore choose euthanasia. It canalso be that people would be pressured to request euthanasia. Another concern is that thelegalization of voluntary euthanasia could risk leading to the legalization of non-voluntaryeuthanasia, which means including other people in the euthanasia decision without their ownconsent. These risks are worth reflecting on and it is always difficult to balance the benefitsagainst risks concerning euthanasia. The best interests of the patient should be a guidingprinciple in decision-making in euthanasia and one should always try to reduce unnecessarysuffering

Euthanasia- A threat to the welfare or an opportunity?

In parallel with medical developments, the debate on euthanasia has gained new momentumin the Western world. Many countries have now legalized various forms of euthanasia, whileothers are investigating the issue. Euthanasia has been described as a difficult issue with manydimensions and worldwide there is no consensus among philosophers. The question ofeuthanasia may be relevant in the various cases where patients suffer and experienceunnecessary pain due to various diseases. The consequence of a bodily pain can lead toexistential thoughts about the meaning of life in these people. People who cannot find ameaningful continuation with their lives can express a wish to end their lives througheuthanasia. A literature review has been undertaken and various databases have been used inorder to search for scientific articles, debates and philosophical books. The purpose of thisthesis is to describe the state of knowledge about euthanasia and whether we should alloweuthanasia in Sweden. Four main arguments for and against euthanasia have been identified:1) the right to life, 2) the principle of autonomy, 3) the patient's best interests, and 4)euthanasia as a substitute for palliative care and the slippery slope argument.It is true that euthanasia poses a direct threat to the right to life and the sanctity of life. At thesame time the right to life can also be interpreted as having self-determination to end one's lifeat any time. A ban on euthanasia may benefit the right to life but it could mean an unwantedlife for many patients who suffer. A ban could also lead to a violation of personal integrity ofthe patient where they may experience not being taken seriously.There are, of course, several concerns and criticisms directed to a legalization of euthanasia.For example, patients who request euthanasia may be in a vulnerable position due to theirillness and/or lack of social or economic resources and therefore choose euthanasia. It canalso be that people would be pressured to request euthanasia. Another concern is that thelegalization of voluntary euthanasia could risk leading to the legalization of non-voluntaryeuthanasia, which means including other people in the euthanasia decision without their ownconsent. These risks are worth reflecting on and it is always difficult to balance the benefitsagainst risks concerning euthanasia. The best interests of the patient should be a guidingprinciple in decision-making in euthanasia and one should always try to reduce unnecessarysuffering

Euthanasia- A threat to the welfare or an opportunity?

In parallel with medical developments, the debate on euthanasia has gained new momentumin the Western world. Many countries have now legalized various forms of euthanasia, whileothers are investigating the issue. Euthanasia has been described as a difficult issue with manydimensions and worldwide there is no consensus among philosophers. The question ofeuthanasia may be relevant in the various cases where patients suffer and experienceunnecessary pain due to various diseases. The consequence of a bodily pain can lead toexistential thoughts about the meaning of life in these people. People who cannot find ameaningful continuation with their lives can express a wish to end their lives througheuthanasia. A literature review has been undertaken and various databases have been used inorder to search for scientific articles, debates and philosophical books. The purpose of thisthesis is to describe the state of knowledge about euthanasia and whether we should alloweuthanasia in Sweden. Four main arguments for and against euthanasia have been identified:1) the right to life, 2) the principle of autonomy, 3) the patient's best interests, and 4)euthanasia as a substitute for palliative care and the slippery slope argument.It is true that euthanasia poses a direct threat to the right to life and the sanctity of life. At thesame time the right to life can also be interpreted as having self-determination to end one's lifeat any time. A ban on euthanasia may benefit the right to life but it could mean an unwantedlife for many patients who suffer. A ban could also lead to a violation of personal integrity ofthe patient where they may experience not being taken seriously.There are, of course, several concerns and criticisms directed to a legalization of euthanasia.For example, patients who request euthanasia may be in a vulnerable position due to theirillness and/or lack of social or economic resources and therefore choose euthanasia. It canalso be that people would be pressured to request euthanasia. Another concern is that thelegalization of voluntary euthanasia could risk leading to the legalization of non-voluntaryeuthanasia, which means including other people in the euthanasia decision without their ownconsent. These risks are worth reflecting on and it is always difficult to balance the benefitsagainst risks concerning euthanasia. The best interests of the patient should be a guidingprinciple in decision-making in euthanasia and one should always try to reduce unnecessarysuffering

Euthanasia- A threat to the welfare or an opportunity?

In parallel with medical developments, the debate on euthanasia has gained new momentumin the Western world. Many countries have now legalized various forms of euthanasia, whileothers are investigating the issue. Euthanasia has been described as a difficult issue with manydimensions and worldwide there is no consensus among philosophers. The question ofeuthanasia may be relevant in the various cases where patients suffer and experienceunnecessary pain due to various diseases. The consequence of a bodily pain can lead toexistential thoughts about the meaning of life in these people. People who cannot find ameaningful continuation with their lives can express a wish to end their lives througheuthanasia. A literature review has been undertaken and various databases have been used inorder to search for scientific articles, debates and philosophical books. The purpose of thisthesis is to describe the state of knowledge about euthanasia and whether we should alloweuthanasia in Sweden. Four main arguments for and against euthanasia have been identified:1) the right to life, 2) the principle of autonomy, 3) the patient's best interests, and 4)euthanasia as a substitute for palliative care and the slippery slope argument.It is true that euthanasia poses a direct threat to the right to life and the sanctity of life. At thesame time the right to life can also be interpreted as having self-determination to end one's lifeat any time. A ban on euthanasia may benefit the right to life but it could mean an unwantedlife for many patients who suffer. A ban could also lead to a violation of personal integrity ofthe patient where they may experience not being taken seriously.There are, of course, several concerns and criticisms directed to a legalization of euthanasia.For example, patients who request euthanasia may be in a vulnerable position due to theirillness and/or lack of social or economic resources and therefore choose euthanasia. It canalso be that people would be pressured to request euthanasia. Another concern is that thelegalization of voluntary euthanasia could risk leading to the legalization of non-voluntaryeuthanasia, which means including other people in the euthanasia decision without their ownconsent. These risks are worth reflecting on and it is always difficult to balance the benefitsagainst risks concerning euthanasia. The best interests of the patient should be a guidingprinciple in decision-making in euthanasia and one should always try to reduce unnecessarysuffering

Which ethical problems arise in Moral Case Deliberation concerning patients whose voices are impaired?

Background: Ethically difficult situations are frequently encountered by healthcare professionals. Moralcase deliberation is one form of clinical ethics support, which has the goal to support staff to manageethical difficulties. However, little is known which difficult situations healthcare teams need to discuss. Aim: To explore which kinds of ethically difficult situations interprofessional healthcare teams raise duringmoral case deliberation. Research design: A series of 70 moral case deliberation sessions were audio-recorded in 10 Swedishworkplaces. A descriptive, qualitative approach was applied, using thematic content analysis. Ethical considerations: An advisory statement specifying no objections to the study was provided froman Ethical Review Board, and consent to be recorded was assumed by virtue of participation in the moralcase deliberation. Findings: Three themes emerged: powerlessness over managing difficult interactions with patients andnext-of-kin, unease over unsafe and unequal care, and uncertainty over who should have power over caredecisions. The powerlessness comprised feelings of insufficiency, difficulties to respond or managepatient’s/next-of-kin’s emotional needs or emotional outbursts and discouragement over motivatingpatients not taking responsibility for themselves. They could be uncertain over the patient’sautonomy, who should have power over life and death, disclosing the truth or how much power nextof-kin should have. Discussion: The findings suggest that the nature of the ethically difficult situations brought to moral casedeliberations contained more relational-oriented ethics than principle-based ethics, were permeated byemotions and the uncertainties were pervaded by power aspects between stakeholders.Conclusion: MCD can be useful in understanding the connection between ethical issues and emotionsfrom a team perspective

Euthanasia- A threat to the welfare or an opportunity?

In parallel with medical developments, the debate on euthanasia has gained new momentumin the Western world. Many countries have now legalized various forms of euthanasia, whileothers are investigating the issue. Euthanasia has been described as a difficult issue with manydimensions and worldwide there is no consensus among philosophers. The question ofeuthanasia may be relevant in the various cases where patients suffer and experienceunnecessary pain due to various diseases. The consequence of a bodily pain can lead toexistential thoughts about the meaning of life in these people. People who cannot find ameaningful continuation with their lives can express a wish to end their lives througheuthanasia. A literature review has been undertaken and various databases have been used inorder to search for scientific articles, debates and philosophical books. The purpose of thisthesis is to describe the state of knowledge about euthanasia and whether we should alloweuthanasia in Sweden. Four main arguments for and against euthanasia have been identified:1) the right to life, 2) the principle of autonomy, 3) the patient's best interests, and 4)euthanasia as a substitute for palliative care and the slippery slope argument.It is true that euthanasia poses a direct threat to the right to life and the sanctity of life. At thesame time the right to life can also be interpreted as having self-determination to end one's lifeat any time. A ban on euthanasia may benefit the right to life but it could mean an unwantedlife for many patients who suffer. A ban could also lead to a violation of personal integrity ofthe patient where they may experience not being taken seriously.There are, of course, several concerns and criticisms directed to a legalization of euthanasia.For example, patients who request euthanasia may be in a vulnerable position due to theirillness and/or lack of social or economic resources and therefore choose euthanasia. It canalso be that people would be pressured to request euthanasia. Another concern is that thelegalization of voluntary euthanasia could risk leading to the legalization of non-voluntaryeuthanasia, which means including other people in the euthanasia decision without their ownconsent. These risks are worth reflecting on and it is always difficult to balance the benefitsagainst risks concerning euthanasia. The best interests of the patient should be a guidingprinciple in decision-making in euthanasia and one should always try to reduce unnecessarysuffering

Euthanasia- A threat to the welfare or an opportunity?

In parallel with medical developments, the debate on euthanasia has gained new momentumin the Western world. Many countries have now legalized various forms of euthanasia, whileothers are investigating the issue. Euthanasia has been described as a difficult issue with manydimensions and worldwide there is no consensus among philosophers. The question ofeuthanasia may be relevant in the various cases where patients suffer and experienceunnecessary pain due to various diseases. The consequence of a bodily pain can lead toexistential thoughts about the meaning of life in these people. People who cannot find ameaningful continuation with their lives can express a wish to end their lives througheuthanasia. A literature review has been undertaken and various databases have been used inorder to search for scientific articles, debates and philosophical books. The purpose of thisthesis is to describe the state of knowledge about euthanasia and whether we should alloweuthanasia in Sweden. Four main arguments for and against euthanasia have been identified:1) the right to life, 2) the principle of autonomy, 3) the patient's best interests, and 4)euthanasia as a substitute for palliative care and the slippery slope argument.It is true that euthanasia poses a direct threat to the right to life and the sanctity of life. At thesame time the right to life can also be interpreted as having self-determination to end one's lifeat any time. A ban on euthanasia may benefit the right to life but it could mean an unwantedlife for many patients who suffer. A ban could also lead to a violation of personal integrity ofthe patient where they may experience not being taken seriously.There are, of course, several concerns and criticisms directed to a legalization of euthanasia.For example, patients who request euthanasia may be in a vulnerable position due to theirillness and/or lack of social or economic resources and therefore choose euthanasia. It canalso be that people would be pressured to request euthanasia. Another concern is that thelegalization of voluntary euthanasia could risk leading to the legalization of non-voluntaryeuthanasia, which means including other people in the euthanasia decision without their ownconsent. These risks are worth reflecting on and it is always difficult to balance the benefitsagainst risks concerning euthanasia. The best interests of the patient should be a guidingprinciple in decision-making in euthanasia and one should always try to reduce unnecessarysuffering

Concept Clarification of Moral Case Deliberation

Background: Health care professionals have encountered ethically difficult situations for decades in their clinical practice. Various clinical ethics support has been established in order to deal with these issues. Moral case deliberation is a new developed approach that deliberates over ethically difficult cases in clinical practice. However, there is lack of knowledge that describes the characteristics of the moral case deliberation and how this differs to related clinical ethics support where a concept analysis may clarify the differences. Aim: To analyse the concept of moral case deliberation and related concepts. Methods: Integrative literature review. Rodger’s evolutionary view of concept analysis has been used for clarification of the concept. Using specific keywords in the databases, searching for peer-reviewed academic paper published in English between 1995-2017 in the CINAHL, MEDLINE, Psych Info, Academic Search Elite and AMED. Results: Moral case deliberation (MCD) was defined as an approach with four specific characteristics: 1) Perspective sharing via dialogue, 2) training moral awareness, 3) moral emotional deliberation, and 4) moral support and joint learning. The presence of a facilitator who is trained in a specific method for the MCD reflection seemed to be important when stimulating the discussion from a patient perspective. Conclusions: Clarify the concept of moral case deliberation can be useful for healthcare professionals when choosing a facilitate-base reflection. Through a mutual dialogue and perspective sharing can MCD train staff members in moral awareness, create a space for emotions to be expressed and finally work as an platform for joint learning

Unethical abuse of women’s medical right during the childbirth : Risk factors and consequences

Background: Obstetric violence (OV) is a widespread post antenatal phenomenon all around the globe and threatens the provision of respectful, dignified and autonomy-based childbirth for women. Previous research indicates that the consequence of OV is devastating for women’s human right, health, and childbirth experiences. Furthermore, previous studies have also highlighted the increased numbers of elective cesarean section because of fear to exposed to OV during childbirth. The aim of this study is to illuminate the risk factors associated with obstetric violence in the private and public financed hospital and the need of ethical aspects.   Methods: Systematic reviews were performed and a comprehensive data extraction from 1996 to 2022 were conducted in databases PubMed, CINAHL and Web of science. Mesh terms and Cinahl headings used to identify the relevant literature based on the concept obstetric violence. In total 330 scientific articles were analyzed, condensed, and generated the results. Discussion/Conclusion: Preliminary results shows that risk factors that is associated with the prevalence of obstetric violence is more likely to appear in the public financed hospital compare with private. This includes the lack of resources, staff/shortage/work overload, organizational and medical hierarchy (culture of abuse), women’s socioeconomical backgrounds and education, social status and family support, age, physical appearance, patients’ advocacy, lack of legal protection and patient organization, lack of ethical guidelines and principles. The result also indicates a great need for ethical reflection groups among healthcare providers in both private and public financed hospital delivery unit.  Consequences: Women who are exposed to OV are more likely to develop postnatal depression and anxiety. This could have a huge impact on women’s’ lactation and care for the infant (difficulty bonding). Distrust to the healthcare system (ethical and legal aspects) could lead to choices such as home birth which means higher risks and complications for women’s health in terms of infections, hypertension, bleeding, newborn injuries, or death.  Future studies need to focus on the hypothesis:  - Obstetric violence could have negative impact on pro-natalist society with lower      childbirth rate consequently. - Postpartum depression could enhance the risk for trigger a shaken baby syndrome