quality of life or merely prolong their
suffering.
ANDREA ROSE LUMAWIG
HANNAH MAE LUNAG
FRANCIS ROBERT GECOBE
DYSTHANASIA
 What is Dysthanasia?
 Moral Issue
 Why is it a normal issue? Morally
permissible or not?
 Ethical Theories or Principles
surrounding the issue
Dysthanasia, also known as "bad death" or
"non-beneficial prolongation of life," refers to
the practice of maintaining a patient's life
artificially, often in situations where death is
imminent and there is little to no chance of
recovery or improvement. This issue raises
moral concerns due to several reasons:
1. Autonomy and dignity: The principle of
autonomy asserts that individuals have the
right to make decisions about their own lives
and bodies. Dysthanasia can infringe upon a
person's autonomy by prolonging their
suffering against their wishes. It may also
undermine their dignity by subjecting them
to unnecessary medical interventions that
offer little benefit.
2. Quality of life: Dysthanasia may result in a
prolonged period of suffering, pain, and
reduced quality of life for the patient. In such
cases, there is a moral obligation to consider
the patient's well-being and whether the
interventions used actually improve their
3. Allocation of resources: The resources used
to sustain a patient's life artificially could be
limited, such as hospital beds, medical
equipment, and healthcare personnel. When
these resources are allocated to patients who
have little chance of recovery or
improvement, it can lead to a strain on
healthcare systems, prevent others from
accessing necessary care, and raise ethical
questions about resource allocation.
4. Family and loved ones: Dysthanasia can also
impact the patient's family and loved ones. It
may prolong their emotional and
psychological burden, as they witness the
suffering of their loved one without the hope
of recovery. Considering the impact on the
patient's support network is an important
aspect of the moral evaluation of
dysthanasia.
5. Professional integrity: Healthcare
professionals often face ethical dilemmas
when it comes to providing care to patients in
end-of-life situations. Some medical
professionals may view dysthanasia as
contrary to their professional obligations to
do no harm and provide care in the best
interest of the patient. It is important to note
that opinions on dysthanasia and end-of-life
care can vary depending on cultural,
religious, and personal beliefs. The moral
issues surrounding dysthanasia are complex
and require careful consideration of various
ethical principles and
individual circumstances.
Dysthanasia, also known as "bad death" or
"aggressive medical intervention," refers to
the prolongation of the dying process
through excessive or futile medical
treatment. Ethical theories provide
frameworks for analyzing and evaluating the
ethical considerations associated with
dysthanasia. Here are some ethical theories
relevant to the topic:
Dysthanasia, also known as "bad death" or
"aggressive medical intervention," refers to
the prolongation of the dying process
through excessive or futile medical
treatment. Ethical theories provide
frameworks for analyzing and evaluating the
ethical considerations associated with
dysthanasia. Here are some ethical theories
relevant to the topic:
Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism focuses on
maximizing overall happiness or well-being
for the greatest number of people. In the
context of dysthanasia, utilitarianism would
consider the consequences of aggressive
medical intervention and weigh them against
the potential benefits. If the treatment
causes unnecessary suffering and has little
chance of improving the patient's quality of
life, a utilitarian perspective might argue
against prolonging the dying process.
Deontology: Deontological ethics, often
associated with philosophers like Immanuel
Kant, emphasizes the inherent value of
certain moral principles or duties. From a
deontological standpoint, the focus is on the
ethical rules or duties involved in dysthanasia.
For example, a deontologist might argue that
it is a moral duty to respect the autonomy
and dignity of the patient, and therefore,
excessive medical intervention should be
avoided if it violates these principles.
Virtue ethics: Virtue ethics places importance
on the character and virtues of individuals
rather than specific rules or consequences. In
the context of dysthanasia, virtue ethics
would consider the moral virtues that guide
healthcare professionals' actions. For
example, virtues such as compassion,
empathy, and integrity may guide decisions
about whether to continue aggressive
medical treatment or shift towards palliative
care. Principlism: Principlism is an ethical
framework commonly used in bioethics,
which combines several ethical principles to
guide decision-making. The four primary
principles of principlism are autonomy,
beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.
When applied to dysthanasia, these
principles would be considered in the context
of the patient's wishes, the potential benefits
and harms of treatment, and the fair
distribution of resources.
Rights-based ethics: Rights-based ethics
focuses on protecting and respecting
individual rights. In the context of
dysthanasia, the patient's right to autonomy
and self-determination would be central. This
perspective would emphasize the importance
of allowing patients to make decisions about
their own end-of-life care, including the
choice to refuse aggressive medical
intervention.
Dysthanasia, or aggressive and futile medical
intervention that prolongs the dying process,
is considered a moral issue for several
reasons:
Respect for Autonomy: Dysthanasia raises
questions about the patient's right to
autonomy and self-determination.
Individuals have the right to make decisions
about their own bodies and medical
treatments. When aggressive medical
intervention is imposed on a dying patient
without their consent or against their wishes,
it can be seen as a violation of their
autonomy.
Quality of Life: Dysthanasia can result in
unnecessary suffering and a decreased
quality of life for the dying patient. Prolonging
the dying process through aggressive medical
intervention can subject the individual to
physical and emotional pain, invasive
procedures, and a diminished ability to
engage in meaningful activities or maintain
relationships. Ethical concerns arise when the
burden of treatment outweighs the potential
benefits and fails to respect the patient's
dignity.
Allocation of Resources: Aggressive medical
intervention consumes valuable healthcare
resources, including financial, technological,
and human resources. When these resources
are devoted to futile treatments, it can limit
the availability of resources for other patients
who could benefit from them. The ethical
question arises about the just distribution of
limited resources and the potential harm
caused by diverting them towards
interventions with little chance of success.
Professional Integrity: For healthcare
professionals, dysthanasia can present ethical
challenges related to their professional duties
and integrity. Physicians and other healthcare
providers have an obligation to act in the best
interests of their patients and promote their
well-being. When medical interventions
become futile and only serve to prolong
suffering, healthcare professionals may face
moral distress and ethical dilemmas
regarding their duty to do no harm and
provide compassionate care.
Cultural and Religious Perspectives:
Dysthanasia raises moral concerns that are
influenced by cultural and religious beliefs.
Different cultures and religions have varying
views on end-of-life care, the sanctity of life,
and the acceptability of aggressive medical
intervention. Moral debates surrounding
dysthanasia often reflect diverse perspectives
on the value of life, the meaning of suffering,
and the role of medical intervention in the
dying process.
Dysthanasia as Morally Impermissible:
Those who argue against dysthanasia often
emphasize the following points:
a. Respect for Autonomy: Advocates for
patient autonomy argue that individuals have
the right to make decisions about their own
bodies and medical care, including the choice
to refuse or withdraw futile treatments.
Forcing aggressive medical intervention on a
dying patient without their consent can be
seen as a violation of their autonomy.
b. Minimizing Suffering: Dysthanasia can
prolong suffering and diminish the quality of
life for the dying patient. Advocates for
minimizing suffering argue that it is ethically
preferable to prioritize palliative care and
comfort measures rather than subjecting
patients to unnecessary and futile medical
interventions.
c. Resource Allocation: Given the limitations
of healthcare resources, allocating them to
futile treatments can be seen as wasteful and
unfair to other patients who could benefit
from those resources. From a utilitarian
perspective, it may be more morally
justifiable to allocate resources to
interventions that have a higher likelihood of
success or that provide greater overall
benefit to patients.
Dysthanasia as Morally Permissible:
On the other hand, proponents of
dysthanasia may present the following
arguments:
a. Sanctity of Life: Some individuals and
cultures emphasize the inherent value and
sanctity of life, believing that every effort
should be made to preserve life, even if the
chance of recovery is minimal. From this
perspective, aggressive medical intervention
may be seen as a moral duty, if it respects the
patient's wishes and does not cause undue
harm.

b. Hope and Uncertainty: Supporters of

dysthanasia argue that there is always a
degree of uncertainty in predicting medical
outcomes, and there have been cases where
patients have unexpectedly recovered
despite a grim prognosis. They assert that as
long as there is any possibility, however small,
of a positive outcome, it is morally justifiable
to pursue aggressive medical intervention.

c. Cultural and Religious Beliefs: Cultural and

religious beliefs can influence moral
perspectives on end-of-life care. Some
cultures and religions may prioritize the
preservation of life and view aggressive
medical intervention as a moral imperative.
These beliefs may shape the moral
permissibility of dysthanasia within specific
cultural or religious contexts.