Abraham De La Rosa, Annotated Bibliography Draft

Abraham De La Rosa

April 7, 2022

ENG1121

Word Count: XXXX

U2 Annotated Bibliography

Introduction

What would be the impact in America if we legalized euthanasia? That is the question I hope to find some answer to by creating this document. I grew interested in this subject when I stumbled upon the moral quandary of euthanasia, whether or not it is right to allow someone to end their own life. I can see where both sides to the argument concerning euthanasia come from and can see their points. When it comes to this debate, I do not know which side of the argument I am on. I can see how some people would argue how it is not moral to let patient continue to living if their pain and suffering has become unbearable. I can also understand how people are afraid of the slippey slope euthanasia can possibly cause if it is legalized. This bibliography is an attempt to educate myself about this topic and better understand the possible impact euthanasia can have, whether the impact be positive or negative. I expect to find information and statistics about euthanasia in places where it is legal, such as the Netherlands. I also expect to find information about safeguards, since they would help mitigate any negative impact. I would also expect to find some interviews with patients and how they would feel if it was legalized, since euthanasia is a topic concerning them most of all. I believe there would be some problems euthanasia would bring and there would need to be safeguards and a list of criteria which need to be fulfilled before administering euthanasia.

Source Entries

Source #1:

Battin, Margaret P., et al. “Legal Physician-Assisted Dying in Oregon and the Netherlands: Evidence Concerning the Impact on Patients in ‘vulnerable’ Groups.” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 33, no. 10, BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics, 2007, pp. 591–40, https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2007.022335.

The document starts with addressing the question the author wishes to answer, “Would legalizing euthanasia make it so vulnerable patients would be targeted and pressured into accepting it?” The author first presents the slippery slope argument and data from Oregon and the Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal. The author also presents the legal background to give context to euthanasia in Oregon and the Netherlands. The author analyzes the data and finds that there are not many groups where there is a heightened risk of patients dying. The author ultimately concludes that there is no evidence that legalizing euthanasia will have a disproportionate impact on patients and vulnerable groups.

I am inclined to agree with the text, considering it presented a sound argument and supported it with evidence. I do not have any questions. Some information you might need to study in order to better understand this article is information concerning rates of death in other categories besides euthanasia, to get a better picture of what the other is talking about. I would ask the author if there is any way to help the people within the aids group concerning the heightened risk. This document tells me that there is most likely no great and disastrous impact legalizing euthanasia can have and it is most likely safe to do so.

I like the author’s writing style and the way he organizes information. The author’s intended audience are people who are concerned about a potential slippery slope with legalizing euthanasia. The genre is effective and the choice makes sense, since the author is able to structure the document in a way where it is easy to understand. The author is credible, since she is a professor and medical ethicist and the document uses facts and data to support its claims.

” Uninsured people: no evidence of heightened risk

Three Oregon patients (1%) did not have documented health insurance, and in four cases, insurance status was unknown. In contrast, 16.9% of non-elderly adults in Oregon were uninsured (persons 65 and older are insured by Medicare). In the Netherlands, virtually all patients are covered by mandated nationwide health insurance.”

Source #2:

Benrubi, Guy I. “Euthanasia — The Need for Procedural Safeguards.” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 326, no. 3, Massachusetts Medical Society, 1992, pp. 197–99, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199201163260311.

This article discusses the necessary safeguards for Euthanasia if it were to be legalized. The author starts by delving into both sides of the argument and showing why people would argue for each side. The author then moves on to discuss who would be suitable for the task of helping patients with the process of Euthanasia. The author explains in depth why certain physicians would be required. The author ends the article by stating how he believes it would be unethical to allow patients to continue suffering but also stating there needs to be safeguards in order to help the patient and protect the integrity of medical professions.

I agree with the text. I believe there needs to be several experts to deal with such cases, with an anesthesiologist ensuring it is painless and the psychiatrists ensuring the patient is of sound mind. I am not confused on anything. The article was concise and informative. Though, I do wonder what special requirements anesthesiologists would need to qualify to administer this treatment. I would probably need to look up studies about what anesthesiologists must do to enter their professions. I would thank the author for writing such an informative piece and help enlighten me. This document tells me that dealing with the repercussions of Euthanasia would be a long process, but it is possible to mitigate the repercussions of euthanasia and stop any abuse of it.

I like the author’s writing style, though I do not think I have encountered a writing style I truly dislike. The author’s intended audience are other physicians and higher ups in the government. The genre is effective because the author is putting this information in an article which is public and available for any other person in a medical profession to see. It makes sense since he wants other people to consider the safeguards. I think this is a credible author and document since the author is a doctor who graduated from University of Florida Health Science Center.

“The psychiatrist would be needed to conduct a complete evaluation of the patient, to try to determine whether the request for euthanasia was made from a relatively rational standpoint, as opposed to a state of pathologic depression.”

Source #3:

Kouwenhoven, Pauline, et al. “Opinions About Euthanasia and Advanced Dementia: A Qualitative Study Among Dutch Physicians and Members of the General Public.” BMC Medical Ethics, vol. 16, no. 1, BioMed Central Ltd, 2015, pp. 7–7, https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-16-7.

The author first gives the reader an abstract, detailing the background, methods, result and conclusion of a study concerning the use of euthanasia on people with advanced dementia. The study is conducted in the Netherlands and the author states the legal background of the argument. The author seeks different physicians and nurses for interviews on their views of this debate and the use of AEDs (Advance Euthanasia Directive). The author gives us an analysis on their interviews and notes how the voluntary character and confidentiality are emphasized. Almost all physicians agreed on the need for explicit confirmation and acknowledged the limits of AEDs. There is also an emotional impact and fear of legal consequences physicians have when it comes to using euthanasia. The author concluded that communication is necessary for understanding the use of euthanasia on patients with advanced dementia and the application of AEDs is very limited.

I do not believe there is any real position the author takes when he is writing this article. This article is non-opinionated. I do not have any questions. You would probably have to look up the criteria for Euthanasia in the Netherlands to understand the article better and what constitutes as unbearable suffering and a voluntary request. I would ask the author about cases where AEDs were used and interviews of how family members felt. This document tells me about the amount of thought physicians put into this debate and how even in places where euthanasia is legal, there are safeguards and consideration for the patient’s will.

I like the author’s writing style, though there is a great amount of vocabulary which I needed to learn in order to fully understand this article. The author’s intended audience are people who are concerned about this debate and the general public and the purpose is to inform people about this argument without taking a side. The genre is effective and it makes sense, with how the article aims to inform. I know the article and author are credible since the website tells us about several organizations the author is affiliated with and shows the other publications the author has. The author works at Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care.

“Both physicians and members of general public recognized the importance of respecting a competent wish as laid down in an AED. However, both also mentioned possible problems and limitations regarding a formerly written request: foreseeing future wishes and suffering was regarded as difficult, because people may change their preferences and adapt to new situations they previously thought to be unbearable.”

Conclusion

I have found, through my research, that euthanasia, while being a difficult and long process to do safely, is something which can be implemented into our system. There are a few people who have heightened risk of being administered euthanasia, but many other vulnerable groups have seen no heightened risk. People have proposed several measures to ensure euthanasia is administered painlessly and with the patient’s explicit consent. There is also consideration of AEDs and physicians are heavily debating the patient’s consent when it comes to AEDs. I am rather surprised at the low amount of risk when it comes to administering euthanasia to vulnerable groups. I would have thought there would have been more risks, but it seems I was wrong. What I learned is important because it tells me the slippery slope fear is unnecessary with what we have seen in statistics in the Netherlands. There are also many proposed safety measures when it comes to euthanasia, which means there is less of a risk people would be able to abuse it. I think physicians and government officials should know this information because it can give more clarity on this situation and help them in their decision of whether or not to legalize euthanasia. There seems to be more and more of a demand to make euthanasia legal in the public. People in the government and people working in the medical field probably have their own doubts and fears concerning this topic and they should know about this information.