The Current Policy on State Accountability for Education- Annotated Bibliography
Greenhow, C., Lewin, C., & Staudt Willet, K. B. (2021). The educational response to Covid-19
across two countries: A critical examination of initial digital pedagogy adoption.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30(1), 7-25.
A new approach to schooling, known as digital pedagogy, was established due to the lockdown precautions and harsh regulations implemented to limit COVID-19 spread, which has been inflicting individuals worldwide since March 2020. The writers of this research look at the initial effects of adopting and implementing digital pedagogies. The authors use activity theory to analyze the educational responses to this international health issue in China and the United States. Twenty-four educators from the both nations were interviewed comprehensively using a qualitative methodology by the authors. The main conclusions of the research were that during the pandemic, educators in both countries felt a greater sense of responsibility for their profession and uncertainty and worry about the fate of education. According to the authors, implementing digital pedagogies was frequently seen as a solution to these issues. However, there was also a perception that these pedagogies were only occasionally effective in reaching the requirements of all learners. The study’s authors point out several positives and significant drawbacks. As it closely analyzes the initial adoption of digital pedagogy in reaction to Covid-19, the book is pertinent to the study on “the current policy on the status of accountability for education.”
Humans are again in the middle of a worldwide calamity that has been swiftly and profoundly inflicted on everyone on the planet. Its effects only worsen daily as another pandemic is documented in the annals of human history (World Health Organization [WHO], 2021). States have been selecting one or more distant education institution options starting in March 2020 following their educational practices and the evolving situation. While most nations have chosen to use online and virtual training, alternatives include face-to-face and hybrid learning.
In this essay, among the top 20 highly afflicted countries and two of the top five countries in terms of the highest incremental death tolls (World Health Organization (WHO), 2020) are China and the United States, where we assess the educational reaction to this global epidemic in both countries. The national responsibility of education in China and the U.S. is comparable, as outlined in more context below, and learners in these nations perform correspondingly on extensive international evaluations (Liu, Yue & Tchounwou, 2020). As a result, it is essential to examine and compare the educational reactions to the Covid-19 pandemic in the U.S. and China. For many students in both countries, education changed to e-learning.
In the U.S., state and local authorities are responsible for education. Schools are developed by towns, states, and private and public entities, creating curricula and setting admissions and graduation standards. Additionally, the U.S. national government provides financing to school districts that adhere to federal regulations. The main educational technology program document for P.K.–12 education is the National Education Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education (2017), which has not been modified since 2017. It expresses a concept of making learning accessible everywhere, all the time, while also recognizing the ongoing requirement for ensuring fair access to technology (García & Weiss, 2020). The Plan’s main objective is to deliver high-quality, technologically advanced educational experiences supported by the school management, facilities, and career development for teachers.
The Chinese educational curriculum has six years of attending primary school, three years of secondary school, and four years of a typical tertiary program. Rural schools rely more on their financial resources, while all urban institutions are paid for by the government (Chen et al., 2020). Since the start of the economic restructuring and open-door strategy in the late 1970s, China’s education policy has significantly changed. Market-oriented changes and the quest for strong economic development in a global economy have significantly impacted the advancement of China’s educational system and regulations.
The research shows that both countries have a similar education system. Furthermore, the United States and China’s education systems fail to plan and accommodate e-learning programs (Huang et al., 2020). For instance, the education system in the United States needs to adequately address the needs of teachers or learners who study remotely online through ICT facilities or national disaster readiness for virtual schooling. The COVID-19 program, which mandated that students attend lessons at home, has resulted in substantial infrastructure improvements for online curriculums, seen initially as ineffectual.
Virtual learning, online fairness, and parental participation are three areas of research briefly summarized in this paper pertinent to this analysis of the virtual education process in reaction to the Covid-19 outbreak. Online resources assisted in distance learning. Because many pupils lacked access to necessary equipment or had to share it with their parents or siblings, digital equality issues came to light. Parents also assumed new duties and obligations, which changed the demands placed on parental involvement.
The secret to enhancing the efficiency of online learning would be to embrace electronic information through student discussion forums, emails, social platforms, internet communities, and many more. Learners can talk to their peers and ask questions about the curriculum and tasks. According to studies, asynchronous and synchronous components should be integrated, and online learners should communicate with one another, their instructors, and the course material ((Amiti, 2020). They should also receive ongoing effective feedback (Bailey, Almusharraf, & Hatcher, 2021). According to the evidence, peer relationships may help motivate students and enhance learning. Teacher support and training are essential for developing and implementing these high-quality online contexts, but up to this moment, such facilities have been few.
Digital Divide and Digital Equity
Even when poor learners may have digital connectivity, they are still more probably to have low adequate digital literacy, utilize Online services in specific ways, and take advantage of fewer chances. In order to overcome these access difficulties, policy efforts have been continuously formed in the U.S. and China. Digital exclusion, nevertheless, can affect kids from all backgrounds for a range of factors and is not often related to the socioeconomic position or digital ability. For instance, accessibility difficulties also affect students with special learning needs, and teachers frequently overlook inclusive digital approaches (Willems, Farley & Campbell 2019). Working under various socio-technical circumstances (such as lacking social support) could produce wildly varying educational outcomes.
Parents’ behaviors impact students’ at-home learning; merely expressing concern about their kids’ schoolwork demonstrates the importance of education. Teachers throughout COVID-19 concentrated on parent and learner interaction. They discovered that parents frequently were not informed of tasks, while most professors could not reach their students (Yang, 2020). However, parents with young children in kindergarten and toddlerhood discovered that instructors could maintain contact with parents via daily virtual classroom sessions. They discussed how patient teachers were when collaborating with parents to resolve technical problems and comprehend absences. They concluded that parents needed help and direction to enable technology-enhanced home teaching.
One option might be to give parents access to educational films. Nevertheless, the absence of technical facilities, parents’ worries regarding their children’s digital training, family circumstances (such as divorce), communal considerations, and time limits for both parents and instructors are some of the obstacles that still stand in the way (for instance racism) Parents must practice agency in observing and assisting their children’s eLearning, according to the recommendations made by Dong, Cao, & Li (2020), Mantovani et al., (2021), and Yi and Dixon (2021). (Like developing regulations for daily exercises and technology usage). In the end, cooperation between parents and institutions and parental social support is necessary for distance e-learning to be efficient.
The study’s two main objectives are:
(1) What was the educational reaction to Covid-19 in each of our two countries (China and the U.S.)
(2) How did the two countries’ educational responses to Covid-19 compare?
In the interpretive approach, we used a qualitative case study paradigm. Since it enables in-depth analysis and cross-case contrasts, case studies are a suitable research tool for examining regulatory frameworks to educational crises. Cases were constrained by federal context. Additionally, we used document analysis, a qualitative research technique that is particularly beneficial to case studies of a particular phenomenon or historical event (Peimani & Kamalipour, 2021). The process of analyzing or evaluating documents, whether they are printed or electronic, in a methodical way can help the researcher gain knowledge and new perspectives. It has been utilized to study the incorporation of digital learning in academic research.
We took examples from media coverage about K–12 education in the U.S. and China, which we refer to as “items,” characterized as printable or digital news media stories, blog posts, editorials, and columns. The media sources chosen included content on education for all 50 U.S. states or some four provinces of China. All of the pieces were published between February and the end of May 2020, allowing for a thorough examination of the earliest educational reactions to the pandemic (Auger et al., 2020). The first piece chosen came from the U.S. and was dated February 27th, 2020; it was published on March 7th 2020, from China.
Using both a priori and open coding, relying on various media sources, collecting data from various periods, and engaging in peer review, we minimized prejudices. Additionally, we triangulated researchers’ points of view by correlating the programming of the first and second researchers to ensure that the assessment was not limited to one viewpoint. To enhance the assessment’s uniformity and consistency, we convened monthly meetings to analyze new codes, evaluate possible topics, and explain or make adjustments. The amount of print media in U.S. news outlets (48) dealt with online pedagogy, which was preceded by policy concerns (22), digital equity (18), and home studying (16). As in the U.S., most articles in Chinese news organizations focused on digital pedagogy (57), trailed by digital equity (36), home automation, and mobile technology.
Response of education to Covid-19
The two situations are now compared and contrasted. On March 10th, 2020, the U.S. started state-level K–12 closings, and in two weeks, several states have done the same. Through the end of April, several states had decided to keep their schools closed through the conclusion of the academic calendar. At the end of March, money for education became accessible. No state or federal initiatives were launched to aid parents and instructors in the shift to virtual learning. In comparison, The Chinese Ministry of Education (MoE) suggested that tertiary levels of education employed online delivery as a substitute for in-person instruction when mainland China delayed all educational operations in late January 2020. Beginning with high school graduation classes, on-campus instruction for students returned progressively from April 2020.
Schools in both nations were free to decide how to handle the crisis. Notably, engagement levels decreased in many institutions in both nations for proximate causes. Technology-enabled contact rose slightly as teachers and schools created virtual learning options. In China, there was overwhelming public support for digital pedagogy. Live instruction, which offers the best chances for engagement, is more prevalent in the U.S. (approximately 60%) than in China (26%), suggesting contrasting attitudes toward safety and confidentiality concerns (Chang, 2020). Both nations were concerned about the low enrollment process. The absence of learner involvement and its effects on study habits and ambitions, particularly for boys, were illustrated by guardians and instructors in China (Mahaye, 2021). It has been observed that underprivileged learners are less motivated than privileged learners in both nations, exacerbating divide difficulties.
Parents’ Involvement in their Children’s Education
The division of labor underwent a substantial shift in both nations, with parents’ involvement in greater responsibility for overseeing their children’s education and those with younger kids assuming greater teaching responsibilities. Parents found this transition challenging; many of them grappled with their lack of understanding about handling it and other obligations (such as working remotely) that demanded their attention (Novianti & Garzia, 2020). With significant discrepancies in the U.S., articles offered counsel and help for parents in both nations and schools on helping parents. China, in contrast, demonstrated a more concerted approach to aiding parents, with numerous organizations offering suggestions, direction, and facilities.
Both countries encountered conflicts between a growing dependence on internet-based technology tools and problems with digital equity; these conflicts showed comparable manifestations but generated different answers. Learners in both nations’ high-poverty and remote institutions experienced a shortage of Internet and gadget availability. The inexistence of social assistance for the usage of educational innovation, which favored learners with readily available tech-guru guardians with higher academic achievements while disadvantageous learning lacked them, was also noted in news publications in both countries.
Additionally, both nations noted a conflict among best practices for digital pedagogy, which place a strong emphasis on regular contact, and actual pedagogy, with a majority of learners from less privileged families in both nations being less probably to participate in live, interactive video lessons, in portion because of problems with new tech accessibility and support. The educational responses to COVID-19 were seen as escalating educational disparities and widening the information gap between privileged and underprivileged individuals in both nations.
Even though both countries prioritized giving students who required access to technology, China did so at the national level. On the contrary, the U.S. developed a decentralized strategy, relying on local school districts, state educational establishments, and internet service providers to resolve digital imbalances. Generally, compared to the U.S., where national, statewide, and zoning bylaws were developing concurrently and occasionally not aligning, the national curriculum regulatory system reaction was more conspicuous, integrated, and significant in China.
The following is what we can accomplish when virtual learning replaces in-person instruction as the focus of the linked school institutions. To enhance prospective academic achievements, it is critical to deal with problems revealed by identifying issues inside and between evolving systems. Four critical topics emerged from our comparison and contrast of the reactions in the two nations: digital pedagogy, alterations in the labor market, difficulties with digital equity, and curriculum design.
First, different institutions serving privileged and marginalized groups adopted digital pedagogy differently in both nations. In both nations, email was the most popular method of communication with students (approximately 88% in both the U.S. and China) (Spinelli et al., 2021). The two nations used different amounts of pre-recorded educational films and lived training. Live training was more prevalent (60%) than pre-recorded tutorial videos in the U.S. Teachers in China, on the other hand, claimed to use pre-recorded training films more frequently (67%) than live lectures (24%). In China, live learnings are very seldom employed by instructors of younger learners, and at first, only 34% of students were mentioned to participate in any online learning experience. This may be a reflection of increased security concerns in China.
Secondly, the growing parental involvement caused considerable changes in the labor market, which posed difficulties. A minimum of 50% of Chinese parents said it was challenging to encourage their kids’ learning at home. Teachers and schools must provide guidance and assistance through the close collaboration for parents’ involvement to be effective. While initially, many schools did not see the need to prioritize this kind of assistance, others did as time progressed. The reaction in China was more well-coordinated, highlighting the significance of external educational systems in resolving conflicts between parents’ prior knowledge and their new position in remote learning. In the U.S., parents had little assistance; they were left to figure things out independently, which was challenging when dealing with competing priorities.
Thirdly, we have added to the knowledge of digital inequalities by offering a more complex perspective on a system developing quickly. In the past ten years, discussions in this area have expanded from access to technology to a more nuanced story (As laid & Harasis, 2021). Nonetheless, while becoming less significant in contemporary literature, having immediate access to digital information proved essential in both nations. Some learners lacked enough accessibility to connection or technology. It should be emphasized that 10% of the households with the highest incomes claim not to have a personal computer or device for homework. In other words, the gap is only partially correlated with average earnings.
Finally, we look at how politicians can help bring about the necessary transformation. Chinese politicians and other education-related activity systems sprang into play, offering a more organized educational approach. There was minimal government or state guidance due to the decentralized nature of education in the U.S., putting it up to individual schools to decide how to proceed (Lowe, Rumbold, & Aoun, 2020). Both nations’ educational technology strategies were centered on the classroom. The transition to virtual learning from home caught both nations off guard. However, home accessibility and facilities have been prioritized in virtual learning; this has become crucial for instructors and also for parents and learners.
Limitations and Recommendations
The educational attitude to Covid-19 in both nations at the start of pandemic-related school shutdown is looked into in this research. If data gathering had proceeded in the U.S. and China through the conclusion of the academic year, a clearer picture of the academic response could have been revealed. Additionally, our investigation is vulnerable to bias because it draws on various news sources and includes a combination of unbiased reporting, personal opinion, study conclusions based on excerpts, and anecdotes. Furthermore, two news outlets with a wide audience and profound respect are left-leaning periodicals, which might have unjustifiably slanted our readings in favor of more independent viewpoints.
The complexity of the educational responses as they develop is less stressed in the mainstream press, which is typically primarily geared around “moral panics” and concentrated on what sells. By offering this overview of the crisis educational responses in two nations, we hoped to point out promising topics for further study that could shed light on these complications. We require extensive exploratory study, supported by large-scale researches on the remote training event program, from the viewpoint of many participants, given the continued use of Covid-19, to further record and resolve the conflicts pointed out here.
Alsoud, A. R., & Harasis, A. A. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on student’s e-learning experience in Jordan. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(5), 1404-1414.
Amiti, F. (2020). Synchronous and asynchronous E-learning. European Journal of Open Education and E-Learning Studies, 5(2).
Auger, K. A., Shah, S. S., Richardson, T., Hartley, D., Hall, M., Warniment, A., … & Thomson, J. E. (2020). Association between statewide school closure and COVID-19 incidence and mortality in the US. Jama, 324(9), 859-870.
Bailey, D., Almusharraf, N., & Hatcher, R. (2021). Finding satisfaction: Intrinsic motivation for synchronous and asynchronous communication in the online language learning context. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 2563-2583.
Chang, B. B. (2020). From ‘Illmatic’to ‘Kung Flu’: Black and Asian solidarity, activism, and pedagogies in the Covid-19 era. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 741-756
Chen, H., Van Reyk, D., Reyna, J., & Oliver, B. G. (2022). A comparison of attitudes toward remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic between students attending a Chinese and an Australian campus. Advances in Physiology Education, 46(2), 297-308.
Chen, T., Peng, L., Yin, X., Rong, J., Yang, J., & Cong, G. (2020, July). Analysis of user satisfaction with online education platforms in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Healthcare (Vol. 8, No. 3, p. 200). MDPI.
Dong, C., Cao, S., & Li, H. (2020). Young children’s online learning during COVID-19 pandemic: Chinese parents’ beliefs and attitudes. Children and youth services review, 118, 105440.
García, E., & Weiss, E. (2020). COVID-19 and Student Performance, Equity, and US Education Policy: Lessons from Pre-Pandemic Research to Inform Relief, Recovery, and Rebuilding. Economic Policy Institute.
Huang, R., Tlili, A., Chang, T. W., Zhang, X., Nascimbeni, F., & Burgos, D. (2020). Disrupted classes, undisrupted learning during COVID-19 outbreak in China: application of open educational practices and resources. Smart Learning Environments, 7(1), 1-15.
Liu, W., Yue, X. G., & Tchounwou, P. B. (2020). Response to the COVID-19 epidemic: the Chinese experience and implications for other countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7), 2304
Lowe, J., Rumbold, B., & Aoun, S. M. (2020). Memorialisation during COVID-19: implications for the bereaved, service providers and policy makers. Palliative Care and Social Practice, 14, 2632352420980456.
Mahaye, N. E. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on education: navigating forward the pedagogy of blended learning. Research online.
Mantovani, S., Bove, C., Ferri, P., Manzoni, P., Cesa Bianchi, A., & Picca, M. (2021). Children ‘under lockdown’: voices, experiences, and resources during and after the COVID-19 emergency. Insights from a survey with children and families in the Lombardy region of Italy. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 29(1), 35-50.
Novianti, R., & Garzia, M. (2020). Parental engagement in children’s online learning during covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Teaching and Learning in Elementary Education (Jtlee), 3(2), 117-131.
Peimani, N., & Kamalipour, H. (2021). Online education and the COVID-19 outbreak: A case study of online teaching during lockdown. Education Sciences, 11(2), 72.
Spinelli, M., Lionetti, F., Setti, A., & Fasolo, M. (2021). Parenting stress during the COVID‐19 outbreak: Socioeconomic and environmental risk factors and implications for children emotion regulation. Family process, 60(2), 639-653.
Willems, J., Farley, H., & Campbell, C. (2019). The increasing significance of digital equity in higher education: An introduction to the Digital Equity Special Issue. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(6), 1-8.
Yang, R. (2020). China’s higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Some preliminary observations. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(7), 1317-1321.
Yi, Z., & Dixon, M. R. (2021). Developing and enhancing adherence to a telehealth ABA parent training curriculum for caregivers of children with autism. Behavior analysis in practice, 14(1), 58-74.
Everyone Has the Right to Legal Euthanasia
Course Name and Number
Several philosophical and ethical issues are raised by the contentious and complicated topic of the right to legal euthanasia. Fundamentally, the right to legal euthanasia is the liberty to decide to terminate one’s own life in a peaceful and respectable way, frequently with the help of a doctor. This right is usually only used when a person has a terminal illness or is dealing with an untreatable disorder that causes individuals excruciating suffering and agony. Euthanasia advocates contend that it is a caring and humane solution to provide people the ability to end their misery while retaining take charge of their lives. They contend that the ability to choose one’s own life and death is a fundamental human right and that depriving someone of this right violates their autonomy and dignity. However, those who are opposed to legal euthanasia contend that it is immoral and violates the standards of the healthcare professionals. They contend that euthanasia should not be permitted because it could result in abuses and the degradation of human existence and that practitioners should save lives rather than take them. Nevertheless, everyone has the right to Legal Euthanasia regardless of their country’s legislation and regulation.
Everyone Has the Right to Legal Euthanasia
The contentious issue of euthanasia, commonly referred to as assisted suicide, has been at the center of discussion for many decades. Although some contend that euthanasia is a kind of murder and must be prohibited, others contend that everybody has the freedom to have a dignified and peaceful death. Euthanasia may be a viable alternative for some individuals for various reasons. Some people may use it to escape a fatal condition that is giving them excruciating pain and suffering. Others might use it to avoid the loss of self-determination and honor that frequently results from advancing age or severe disease.
Forms of Legal Euthanasia
Various actions are classified as “euthanasia.” These distinctions between the different iterations are listed below. These include voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, and others. The intentional killing of a patient, for instance, by giving them a lethal dose of medicine, is known as active euthanasia. They are, at times, referred to as “aggressive” euthanasia. The purposeful withdrawal of artificial life support, for instance, a ventilator or breathing tube, is passive euthanasia (Abohaimed et al., 2019). Several researchers distinguish between stopping ventilatory support and no longer giving it (the person is on life support but later withdrawn from it). Assisted suicide is performed willingly and with the individual’s consent. Euthanasia is carried out voluntarily: with the patient’s permission. For instance, if the patient is unconscious and it is unclear what they want to transpire to them, it may be done against their permission.
Standard versus Unusual Therapy
Controlling bleeding, giving antibiotics and painkillers, and repairing fractures are all usual healthcare therapies. Nevertheless, it is occasionally perceived as unusual therapy or care to maintain patient respiration with supplemental oxygen. As per various ethicists, letting a person die by stopping artificial medical therapy or care is okay, but it is unacceptable to halt getting continuous care (Hinman, 2020). This idea is contradictory. Specific individuals contend that the boundary separating standard treatment from extraordinary therapies is arbitrary, flimsy, unclear, or often dynamic as technology evolves.
Death Planned versus Expected
Certain ethicists consider it important if a critically ill person dies due to purposely taking painkillers, whether the demise was meant or just anticipated. Even though the fatality was not intended to occur, it might be ethically acceptable if it was anticipated. The ethical theory known as the principle of double effect backs up this assertion. People must evaluate the viewpoints of those unfortunate enough to debate whether to terminate their own life. It seems unwise to depend on the viewpoint of individuals who have never had to consider this issue because euthanasia is a straightforward decision. According to Yildirim (2020), it was discovered that patients gave reasons for choosing assisted suicide, including pain, humiliation, mental impairment, and feeling out of control. For them, the chance to pass away peacefully at a moment of their choice, surrounded by loved ones, was better than continuing to endure indefinitely. Since they are the ones for whom the issue of assisted suicide is most important, terminally ill patients concur that euthanasia should be permitted.
Right to Legal Euthanasia Worldwide
In the US, the United Kingdom, and Canada, there have been failed attempts to invoke legally rooted rights arguments to dispute the legal restrictions on assisted suicide. Their rejection renders it unlikely that assisted suicide or euthanasia will be legalized using constitutionally protected rights in any significant common law or European country. The Human Rights Act recognizes the “right to life” as a natural right. Although suicide involves the artificial ending or eradication of life, it is contradictory and conflicting with the idea of the “right to life.” (Hermine, 2019). Euthanasia is currently permitted in Belgium, Luxembourg, and Netherlands. The states of Washington and Oregon in the US permitted pas in 1999 and 1997, correspondingly.
Euthanasia is permitted intermittently in the nations, as mentioned above. Euthanasia is normally only permitted in these nations for terminally ill patients who have expressed a deliberate and thoughtful demand for euthanasia and are in intolerable pain (Nicolini et al. 2022). The morality of euthanasia is less established in other nations, including the US. Physician-assisted euthanasia for individuals in the last stages of illness is permitted in some states, including Washington and Oregon. The majority of states, though, prohibit euthanasia. It is significant to remember that euthanasia’s legalization varies from nation to nation. For instance, euthanasia was permitted in Canada in 2016, although only for a select group of patients who satisfied certain requirements.
Reasons and Benefits of the Right to Legal Euthanasia
The decision to use legal euthanasia may differ from person to person. Among the potential advantages of legal euthanasia are the following: For some with serious disabilities or fatal illnesses, it can ease their pain. Instead of continuing to suffer or be dependent on others, it enables people to pass away peacefully and on to their circumstances (Hermine, 2019). It might bring comfort and tranquility to the person, their relatives, and their family members. It can help you save money on costly medical procedures that might not help you live longer. It may allow people to choose the moment and conditions of their demise. It may lighten the load on the medical system and make resources available to treat more people.
Right to Life Activists
According to proponents of the “right-to-death” idea, persons who have a terminal, degenerative, disabling, or excruciating illness should be given the opportunity to die peacefully. This assertion is additionally substantiated for people with persistent, debilitating, non-terminal ailments, such as severe cognitive problems (Hermine, 2019). Most of these appeals are brought forward by the sufferers, their close allies, or those responsible for caring for them. The caregiver is subjected to significant mental, financial, emotional, physical, time, and social obligations. It is, therefore, uncommon to hear requests from a person with a mental illness or close family members to give the suffering them any poison.
The legal right to refuse medical assistance, particularly therapy that prolongs existence, is properly established in nations like India, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and the United States. For instance, someone with blood malignancy may reject medical care or resist nasogastric feedings. Accepting the freedom to reject medical therapy opens the door for passive euthanasia (Nour, 2020). Many individuals do contend that procuring medical abortion prior to 4 months of gestation is active involuntary euthanasia. The subject of mercy killing of malformed infants was previously addressed in the Netherlands.
Right to Death and Promoting Organ Donation
Many persons who are permanently disabled or terminally ill are unwilling to upset their close relatives. Euthanasia advocates may contend that by honoring the “Right to die” in a distinguished way, they validate the “Right to life” (Popa, 2021). Nevertheless, this right should be weighed against other communal concerns like safeguarding human dignity and advancing the general welfare because it is not unqualified. Euthanizing terminally ill individuals grants an opportunity to foster organ donation. Several organ dysfunction people requiring transplants will gain from this in response. Euthanasia gives individuals who require organs the “right to life” and the “right to die” for critically ill people. Nevertheless, because this is such a complicated matter, many things would need to be taken into account, such as moral considerations and possible effects on the rate of organ donation.
Additionally, economic variables may influence the choices taken by patients, specifically individuals who do not desire to be a liability to their relatives or be perceived as weak, self-centered, or irrational, and they have established components of the recommendations. When they may be more completely reliant on their relatives for emotional support, they can be vulnerable to proposals to terminate their lives as the best alternative for all the hopeless, implying they possess “liability” to die (Popa, 2021). On the other hand, the people who champion euthanasia are encouraged by the ideas of “Self” and “Mercy.”
For numerous people, the quality of their lives is more significant than their sanctity or duration. Most crucially, individuals are entitled to pick their treatment method if their life satisfaction is unacceptable due to unbearable and terrible pain (Nour, 2020). It is an “unjustifiable invasion of individual freedom” to prohibit a patient from making such autonomous choices. A physician who contributes directly to survival must show mercy to the patient.
The anticipated savings to the hospital setting is another justification from a financial standpoint for legalizing euthanasia. The costs associated with providing continued care for those who are terminally ill can put a considerable burden on healthcare facilities. Medical treatment for these people can be quite costly (Popa, 2021). Legal euthanasia might be viewed as a method to spare resources that could be utilized to care for other people, possibly lowering total healthcare expenses. It is crucial to remember that choosing to seek legal euthanasia is a complicated and private decision, and people may do so for a number of different reasons. These financial considerations are but one factor that might play a role in someone’s choice.
Reduce Stigma Surrounding Death
By giving people a choice between a quick, painless death and a protracted, challenging terminal condition, legalizing euthanasia can assist in alleviating the stigma associated with dying. This can allow more honest and truthful conversations about definitive treatment and lessen some of the dread and ambiguity that several individuals feel as their lives conclude. By giving patients the alternative to decide when and how they pass away, euthanasia can assist in fostering independence and dignity afterlife and grant people and their friends and families a sense of tranquility (Baril, 2022). Moreover, establishing a legal foundation for euthanasia may further assist in guaranteeing that the operation is done securely and humanely.
Depending on the country’s legal structure, whether or not a nation’s citizens’ choice about the right to lawful euthanasia matters. The legitimacy of euthanasia could be determined in various nations by taking the democratic choice established by individuals into account. Euthanasia legalization may, nevertheless, be decided upon by legislators or the justice system in various nations as opposed to the general populace (Popa, 2021). It is crucial to remember that every nation has a distinctive legal structure. Therefore, it is challenging to say without additional details whether a citizen’s vote about the right to legal euthanasia might be considered in all situations.
Laws must also protect the public interests; for example, if the populace of a nation chooses, they would like the right to euthanasia, the authorities should not be able to oppose that decision. For instance, Oregon’s assisted a majority vote approved suicide law. It shows that the populace agrees with the issue and wants to make well-informed decisions regarding their end-of-life treatment (Chakrabarti, 2020). On the other end of the scale, it describes the troubling characteristics of participants living in the UK, where assisted suicide is still illegal. In this situation, the nation’s rules intentionally obstruct its inhabitants from deciding and prolonging their misery. As a result, laws governing assisted suicide and end-of-life treatment must consider public sentiment.
Objections to euthanasia
Critics of legal euthanasia contend that it is incompatible with medical values centered on saving lives and helping those struggling. Euthanasia, they contend, is a type of assisted suicide, and doctors should not facilitate patients in taking their own lives; instead, they should attend to and assist them (Raus et al. 2021). Additionally, advocates of legal euthanasia claim that it might be misused. There is a chance that individuals might be forced to choose euthanasia or that it may be exploited to reduce healthcare expenses if there are inadequate protections and restrictions in place. Critics believe that the legalization of euthanasia must be avoided for several reasons. These consist of the following:
Violation of Medical Core Values
Critics contend that it violates the medical community’s core values, which include preserving life and easing pain. The medical community’s ethical standards prohibit euthanasia partly because it entails willfully ending a person’s life, which contradicts medicine’s core mission of saving lives and shielding patients from danger (Pesut et al., 2020). Euthanasia can also be perceived as a breach of the doctor-patient relationship based on confidence and the assurance that the medical professional would operate in the client’s favor.
Ethical Questions and Contradiction to Core Beliefs
Euthanasia raises ethical questions regarding the role of physicians and the possibility of misuse, which is an additional argument why it is contrary to the fundamental beliefs of the medical community. For instance, some individuals might be compelled to choose euthanasia by their loved ones or nurses, or they may feel compelled to do so by medical professionals who have a monetary interest in their demise. Furthermore, euthanasia may contribute to a downhill slide when it is increasingly employed for non-terminal diseases, casting doubt concerning the worth of human existence. Another issue is that lawful euthanasia may abuse disadvantaged people, like those aged, crippled, or people with chronic pain or chronic condition (Pesut et al., 2020). These people may experience a compulsion to pick euthanasia so as not to burden their family or caretakers, or they could be persuaded to do so by others. It might result in violations of authority, compulsion, and someone’s right to choose their direction of living.
According to particular religious groups, euthanasia is immoral since it contradicts the notion that life is a God-given privilege that should not be taken for granted. These organizations contend that assisted suicide is murder and that individuals must be permitted to suffer and pass away peacefully (Ziebertz, 2019). For instance, euthanasia is considered sinful by many Christians since it disobeys the rule “Thou shall not kill.” They might also contend that only God has the authority to determine when a man’s life might cease and that people should not act as if they are God by taking the life of the other. In a related manner, some Muslims contend that the Qur’an forbids euthanasia since it says that “whoever kills a person…it is as though he has slain all mankind.” Buddhist and Hindu beliefs, for example, have the potential to be understood as condemning euthanasia.
Whether euthanasia should be regarded as murder is one of the primary legal questions surrounding the practice. Euthanasia encompasses the practice of purposefully causing some other person’s death, which is prohibited in the majority of nations. This implies that any individual who aids another person in committing suicide might be prosecuted with murder, regardless of whether it is conducted to end the victim’s suffering (Young et al., 2019). The question of consent relates to euthanasia’s legal implications. Individuals desiring euthanasia should offer their full and knowledgeable permission to conduct it lawfully. This implies that the individual must be capable of making a well-informed choice and comprehending the procedure’s characteristics, dangers, and advantages.
Everyone Has the Right to Legal Euthanasia regardless of their country’s legislation and regulation. Euthanasia has merits and demerits, but from this article, it can be seen that the merits outweigh the demerits. The demerits or criticisms of euthanasia are mainly based on ethical and professional medical practices. It is unfair for authorities to dictate how someone should receive treatment or the circumstances they should live or die. I believe everyone should be free to choose their end-of-life therapy, such as the alternative to legal euthanasia.
I also think that everyone has the right to a pain-free and honorable death and that giving people the choice of legal euthanasia can assist in ensuring that they can. Furthermore, people with terminal illnesses or ailments that give them a great deal of pain and misery are entitled to the choice of how and when to terminate their life, provided they are mentally sound to doing so. Although I know this is a contentious topic, giving individuals the option to end their lives might grant them comfort and respite from pain. I also think that rigorous rules and regulations can guarantee that the procedure is secure and that only people who genuinely desire it and satisfy specific requirements use it.
The discussion around lawful euthanasia is complicated and divisive generally. Although some people contend that everyone has the right to choose how to live their lives, others contend that euthanasia violates the core values of healthcare and could be utilized inappropriately. Since it grants patients the ability to choose their outcome, euthanasia must be a fundamental human right. The government should not prevent critically sick individuals from terminating their own lives in a respectful manner since several of them would like to. Moreover, medical caregivers should always practice to give the best care, regardless of whether that includes performing assisted suicide operations. In order to avert abuses, it is essential to crafting the viable legislation carefully, but eventually, the needs of the people must be considered or taken care of.
Total words = 3010
Abohaimed, S., Matar, B., Al-Shimali, H., Al-Thalji, K., Al-Othman, O., Zurba, Y., & Shah, N. (2019). Attitudes of physicians towards different types of euthanasia in Kuwait. Medical Principles and Practice, 28(3), 199-207.
Baril, A. (2022). Theorizing the Intersections of Ableism, Sanism, Ageism and Suicidism in Suicide and Physician-Assisted Death Debates. In The Disability Bioethics Reader (pp. 221-231). Routledge
Chakrabarty, I. (2022). Euthanasia around the World: The Ethical, Legal and Medical Implications. Issue 1 Int’l JL Mgmt. & Human., 5, 131
Herminen, P. (2019). The Legality of Active Euthanasia in Relation to Human Rights and Legal Approaches to Active Euthanasia in Different States. LEurope Unie, 15, 39-47.
Hinman, L. M. (2020). Euthanasia: The moral landscape. In Why We Kill (pp. 124-139). Routledge.
Nicolini, M. E., Gastmans, C., & Kim, S. Y. (2022). Psychiatric euthanasia, suicide and the role of gender. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 220(1), 10-13.
Nour, A. (2020). Euthanasia–A right of the human being or a crime against humanity. Scholars International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 3(5), 141.
Pesut, B., Greig, M., Thorne, S., Storch, J., Burgess, M., Tishelman, C., … & Janke, R. (2020). Nursing and euthanasia: A narrative review of the nursing ethics literature. Nursing ethics, 27(1), 152-167.
Popa, M. F. (2021). What the economic analysis of law can’t do-pitfalls and practical implications. Juridical Trib., 11, 81.
Raus, K., Vanderhaegen, B., & Sterckx, S. (2021, February). Euthanasia in Belgium: Shortcomings of the Law and Its Application and of the Monitoring of Practice. In The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine (Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 80-107). US: Oxford University Press.
Yildirim, J. G. (2020). Knowledge, opinions and behaviors of senior nursing students in Turkey regarding euthanasia and factors in Islam affecting these. Journal of religion and health, 59(1), 399-415.
Young, J., Egan, R., Walker, S., Graham-DeMello, A., & Jackson, C. (2019). The euthanasia debate: synthesising the evidence on New Zealander’s attitudes. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 14(1), 1-21.
Ziebertz, H. G. (2019). Human Dignity, Religious Ethics or Hedonism–What Can Predict Young People’s Attitudes in Germany Towards the Right to Life in the Cases of Euthanasia and Abortion?. In Euthanasia, Abortion, Death Penalty and Religion-The Right to Life and its Limitations (pp. 83-104). Springer, Cham