euthanasia

1. A doctor, a radiologist, had a terrible skin cancer. Parts of his body had been removed because of his cancer. He was blind and in pain. More surgery and more pain awaited the patient. This doctor asked his brother to kill him. One day, his brother got drunk, went to his room and shot him.
a) What type of euthanasia was this?
b) Would you have done the same?
c) Do you approve of the means employed?
d) Evaluate the above situation in light of ethical theories.

In the above situation, the euthanasia employed was an active voluntary euthanasia because it was the patient's desire to be killed. Given the situation, with the patient suffering as he is and I'm his brother, I would like to be kind enough to him and free him from his suffering. However, I don't approve of the means employed by the brother. If I had been in his shoes, I would have employed a subtler way of ending my brother's pain and suffering. It does not necessarily mean ending his life because maybe there would be a strong enough pain reliever that could be given to him. Since the patient is also a doctor, then he would also know of the possible medications that could be given to him to relieve his pain which, however, could also compromise his respiratory function and thereby slimming his chances of survival. Knowing that he also wishes to die, if he approves of these pain relievers, then I would then give my consent and let him be allowed to die. In the light of ethical theories, what I would have wanted for the patient may be considered a double effect principle because my primary concern is to alleviate the pain and in doing so, compromise the respiratory function of the patient. Situation ethics is also applicable because for me, I think the situation really warrants this kind of action on the patient since he is in so much pain already that it would really be better to die than to continue on living. I also believe that it is best to die happy so in terms of Rawl's ethical principle of justice, to serve the individual's happiness would mean to alleviate the patient's suffering, even if it means ending his life. To continue his life full of suffering and unhappiness would be unjust to him.

2. Jane Adkins had Alzheimer's disease and did not want to go through the disease. She went to Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who is in favor of euthanasia. This doctor gave euthanasia with lethal injections but the patient herself pushes the button to start the procedure.
a) What type of euthanasia is used?
b) Would you have made the same decision?

This type of euthanasia is an active type of euthanasia which is self induced, because the patient herself wanted the euthanasia and even when the patient was assisted by a doctor who provided the lethal injections, the patient herself pushed the button that would start the euthanizing process, thus ending her life. No, I won't make the same decision as Jane Adkins had because not going through the disease of Alzheimer's is like giving up without even standing up to fight. Going to this doctor who was nicknamed "Doctor of Death" is like squirming your way out of life's problems. As a doctor, it would be so hard to make a decision of terminating the life of your patients, even if they themselves want it. As Dr. Kevorkian has said in his defense, he is not a doctor of death but a "liberator of the patient's suffering". I guess it all depends of the situation, and how severe the suffering of the patients are, and whether ending their life seems to be the best option. I'm more or less a follower of situation ethics because every decision really depends upon the given case. Each decision should be made on a case-to-case basis and not fixed. In this patient, I'm not in favor of giving her euthanasia because there are better options to cope with this disease rather than ending her life.