More handpicked essays just for you.
The patient doctor relationship essay
How to best handle the relationship between doctors and patients
The patient doctor relationship essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The patient doctor relationship essay
The author describes “futile treatment” as any treatment that is administered to a patient whose medical condition does not have an encouraging outcome with only 10 % of success. It is giving treatment that sustains the life of a patient when there is not much hope of improving. The author gives the testimony of his grandfather’s terminal illness, and the patient’s wish to end all treatments. These treatments apparently kept him alive but in unbearable pain. The healthcare providers were faced with the ethical dilemma of withdrawing (stopping current treatment) vs. withholding treatment (not starting new treatment), while the author felt that everything should be attempted to save his grandfather’s life. Many times, families focus on doing
The ethical issues of physician-assisted suicide are both emotional and controversial, as it struggles with the issue of life and death. If you take a moment and imagine how you would choose to live your last day, it is almost guaranteed that it wouldn’t be a day spent lying in a hospital bed, suffering in pain, continuously being pumped with medicine, and living in a strangers’ body. Today we live in a culture that denies the terminally ill the right to maintain control over when and how to end their lives. Physicians-assisted suicide “is the voluntary termination of one's own life by the administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician” (Medical Definition of Physician-Assisted Suicide, 2017). Physician-assisted
The ethical principle of nonmaleficence demands to first do no harm and in this case protect the patient from harm since she cannot protect. Nurses must be aware in situations such as this, that they are expected to advocate for patients in a right and reasonable way. The dilemma with nonmaleficence is that Mrs. Boswell has no chance of recovery because of her increasing debilitating mental incapability and the obvious harm that outweighs the intended benefits. If the decision were to continue treatment, suffering of the patient and family would be evident. Autonomy is the right to making own decisions and freedom to choose a plan of action. When making decisions regarding treatment of another person, it is important to respect the expressed wishes of the individual. John says that his mother would want to live as long as she could, but questions arise related to her quality of life and perception of prolonged suffering by prolonging the dying process. In BOOK states that quality of life changes throughout one’s life ...
In certain situations it is difficult for a person to decide between a moral and immoral choice. In the field of health there are physicians and patients that may have two different mindsets. One may be a patient that believes a decision is moral, while a physician may think the decision is immoral. How can the physician stick to his beliefs and morals when he must make a choice to go against them or not?
Anyone can be diagnosed with a terminal illness. It doesn’t matter how healthy you are, who you are, or what you do. Some terminal illnesses you can prevent by avoiding unhealthy habits, eating healthily, exercising regularly and keeping up with vaccinations. However some terminally ill people cannot be helped, their diseases cannot be cured and the only thing possible to help them, besides providing pain relieving medication, is to make them as comfortable as possible while enduring their condition. Many times the pharmaceuticals do not provide the desired pain escape, and cause patients to seek immediate relief in methods such as euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of deliberately ending a life in order to alleviate pain and suffering, but is deemed controversial because many various religions believe that their creators are the only ones that should decide when their life’s journey should reach its end. Euthanasia is performed by medical doctors or physicians and is the administration of a fatal dose of a suitable drug to the patient on his or her express request. Although the majority of American states oppose euthanasia, the practice would result in more good as opposed to harm. The patient who is receiving the euthanizing medication would be able to proactively choose their pursuit of happiness, alleviate themselves from all of the built up pain and suffering, relieve the burden they may feel they are upon their family, and die with dignity, which is the most ethical option for vegetative state and terminally ill patients. Euthanasia should remain an alternative to living a slow and painful life for those who are terminally ill, in a vegetative state or would like to end their life with dignity. In addition, t...
Ethical decisions are being made by terminally ill patients as they face death. Some are choosing to end life through PAS, physician-assisted suicide. Dr. Jack Kevorkian has been helping patients end life through his machines. The public opinion is the use of this machine is considered murder, but some have changed their thinking and created laws to make it legal for a physician to help a terminally ill patient die. Physician assisted suicide is a dignified way to end life.
When patients suffering from serious health conditions are towards the end of their lives, they are given an option that can change their lives and the lives of those around them. This option is praised as an act of preserving dignity, but also condemned as an act of weakness. The terminally ill, as well as the disabled and the elderly, are given the choice to end their lives by the method of suicide involving the assistance of a physician. For several years, this method has been under debate on whether this option is ethical or unethical. Not only is this defective option unethical, but it puts ill and elderly patients under pressures that can lead to them choosing this alternative rather than the fighting for their lives.
There is great debate in this country and worldwide over whether or not terminally ill patients who are experiencing great suffering should have the right to choose death. A deep divide amongst the American public exists on the issue. It is extremely important to reach an ethical decision on whether or not terminally ill patients have this right to choose death, since many may be needlessly suffering, if an ethical solution exists.
Emilio is terminally ill and is under the care of the Children’s Hospital in Texas. He is placed on life support by a respirator and is given pills causing the child to spend majority of his time in the pediatric intensive care unit unconscious. Showing no signs of improvement, the physician has requested the parents look for another hospital willing to continue aiding Emilio within a period of 10 days. Under the Texas “futile-care” law, the hospital’s ethics committee can, “declare the care of a terminally ill patient to be of no benefit,” allowing them to terminate care after a given time period. (Moreno, Sylvia. Case Puts Futile-Treatment Law Under a Microscope.
Dr. Raku is aware of the concerns Ms. Pals has about chemotherapy, discovering that she is unaware of the risks this new treatment can pose to hair loss, Dr. Raku should not administer the chemotherapy. In order to respect the autonomy of the patient, Dr. Raku should inform Ms. Pals about the potential risk of hair loss and advise her to speak to her physician for more information and then see if she wants to continue treatment or if other alternative therapies should be sought out. Dr. Prichford has made it clear that he felt no need to tell Ms. Pals about the potential side effects, whoever it is unclear if Dr. Pritchford is aware of Ms. Pals’s concern about her job. Dr. Raku and Dr. Pritchford have the patient’s best interest in mind, but
Euthanasia is a serious political, moral and ethics issues in society. People either strictly forbid or firmly favor euthanasia. Terminally ill patients have a fatal disease from which they will never recover, many will never sleep in their own bed again. Many beg health professionals to “pull the plug” or smother them with a pillow so that they do not have to bear the pain of their disease so that they will die faster. Thomas D. Sullivan and James Rachels have very different views on the permissibility of active and passive euthanasia. Sullivan believes that it is impermissible for the doctor, or anyone else to terminate the life of a patient but, that it is permissible in some cases to cease the employment of “extraordinary means” of preserving
A divergent set of issues and opinions involving medical care for the very seriously ill patient have dogged the bioethics community for decades. While sophisticated medical technology has allowed people to live longer, it has also caused protracted death, most often to the severe detriment of individuals and their families. Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, believes too many Americans are “dying badly.” In discussing this issue, he stated, “Families cannot imagine there could be anything worse than their loved one dying, but in fact, there are things worse.” “It’s having someone you love…suffering, dying connected to machines” (CBS News, 2014). In the not distant past, the knowledge, skills, and technology were simply not available to cure, much less prolong the deaths of gravely ill people. In addition to the ethical and moral dilemmas this presents, the costs of intensive treatment often do not realize appreciable benefits. However, cost alone should not determine when care becomes “futile” as this veers medicine into an even more dangerous ethical quagmire. While preserving life with the best possible care is always good medicine, the suffering and protracted deaths caused from the continued use of futile measures benefits no one. For this reason, the determination of futility should be a joint decision between the physician, the patient, and his or her surrogate.
Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician acting indirectly in the death of the patient -- providing the means for death. The ethics of PAS is a continually debated topic. The range of arguments in support and opposition of PAS are vast. Justice, compassion, the moral irrelevance of the difference between killing and letting die, individual liberty are many arguments for PAS. The distinction between killing and letting die, sanctity of life, "do no harm" principle of medicine, and the potential for abuse are some of the arguments in favor of making PAS illegal. However, self-determination, and ultimately respect for autonomy are relied on heavily as principle arguments in the PAS issue.
Euthanasia is growing towards legal acceptance in the United States where four states have already passed legalization laws in an attempt to relieve the pain of suffering patients. Even if euthanasia becomes a legal practice in the United States, lingering moral issues will continue to cause more lawsuits in the future. It is morally right for patients suffering from persistent, severe pain to choose euthanasia as a medical treatment option. In the following pages, I will, first, explain what euthanasia refers to and some details about what it entails. Second, I will describe all the necessary features about what it means to be suffering from constant and severe pain. Next, I will explore the philosophical attitudes toward the euthanasia of Dax Cowart and Jack Kevorkian who have strong philosophical attitudes toward euthanasia. Finally, I will tie all these points together to prove why euthanasia is a morally acceptable choice for a patient suffering from constant, severe pain.
The ethical debate regarding euthanasia dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. It was the Hippocratic School (c. 400B.C.) that eliminated the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate for a doctor? More so, euthanasia raises the argument of the different ideas that people have about the value of the human experience.
In the following essay, I argue that euthanasia is not morally acceptable because it always involves killing, and undermines intrinsic value of human being. The moral basis on which euthanasia defends its position is contradictory and arbitrary in that its moral values represented in such terms as ‘mercy killing’, ‘dying with dignity’, ‘good death’ and ‘right for self-determination’ fail to justify taking one’s life.