In their “The withdrawal of nutrition and hydration in the vegetative state patient: Societal dimension and issues at stake for the medical profession,” Gian L. Gigli and Mariarosaria Valente argue points against the withdrawal of assisted nutrition and hydration. They believe this decision will possibly cause an ethical impact on the medical field and on society as a whole. Within the article, the authors attempt to evaluate the historical background, the quality of human life, the problem of consent, and consequences of withdrawing assisted nutrition of those in permanent vegetative state. The authors believe “nutrition and hydration should always be provided to patients (including patients in VS) unless they cannot be assimilated by a person’s body, they do not sustain life, or their only mode of delivery imposes grave burdens on the patient or others” (327). The purpose of this article is to persuade the readers to keep a patient, even determined to be in permanent vegetative state, on assisted hydration and nutrition. Interestingly, the authors “observations” are not backed up by data from research. For example, Gigli and Valente state they “observed a weakening of the concept of sanctity of life and a decrease in the strength of social solidarity, the combination of which made unacceptable the financial burdens caused to society by the presence of large numbers of chronic, totally dependent patients” (315). Audacious claims are made and lack support by facts. This article, additionally, declares, “Medical tradition in fact opposes all intentional killing of patients, . . . even when omitting basic means of survival” (316). It is necessary for such a bold statement to be validated, instead of solely stated. Instead of usi... ... middle of paper ... ...lf, to decide to or not to cut off assisted nutrition and hydration. Contradictory, the article later states “However, this is not always the case even in mentally competent, severely disabled persons” (319). The authors switch back and forth from supporting their claim, to opposing it. I believe the authors did a very poor job in writing this article. Its claims are rarely supported by evidence, and only secondary sources are used when they are backed up. Also, Gigli and Valente are very biased and use emotional and bold words consistently. This makes the article invalid and unreliable. The majority of the authors’ statements cover personal opinions and their interpretations of facts. The article mostly contradicts itself and the argument is extremely repetitive. Though the article mostly stays on topic, the majority of its arguments are atrocious.
According to a doctor in the documentary, people are coming to the ICU’s to die. (Lyman et al, 2011) Due to the fact that technology to sustain life is available the decision to end life has become much more complicated yet more people die in hospitals then anywhere else. (Lyman et al, 2011) The story of Marthe the 86 year old dementia patient stood out to me upon viewing the documentary because I recently just had my great grandmother go through the same situation. (Lyman et al, 2011) Marthe entered the ICU and was intubated for two weeks while her family members decided whether to perform a tracheotomy or take her off life support. (Lyman et al, 2011) The family was having a tough time deciding due to the fact that the doctors could sustain Marthe’s life if they requested it. Marthe ended up being taken off the ventilator and to everyone’s surprise was able to breathe but, a day later she could no longer do so and now she has been on life support for a year. (Lyman et al, 2011) Another patient that I took particular interest in was John Moloney a 53 year old multiple myeloma patient who has tried every form of treatment with no success. (Lyman et al, 2011) Despite trying everything he still wanted treatment so he could live and go home with his family but ended up in
Even though Barbara’s intentions in this paper are directly stated, her claims she gives does not back her argument at all. After reading her major claim, which states that we do not have the right to die (97), I feel the complete opposite of what she thinks and I believe a person should have the right to die if there is no chance of them getting better in the future. The author’s grounds explained all of the struggles of keeping a very sick man alive, which I believe gave me some very good evidence to write my counter argument.
The system does not want patients to die, but it does not want the to get better either. The aim is to just treat the symptoms of the disease, rather than treating the actual disease so the patients will keep coming back and the health care centers and pharmaceutical companies can continue to make money. Hospitals and other related health care centers have become solely focused on making a profit. The pharmaceutical companies incentivize the physicians to prescribe their drugs rather than carefully considering all possible treatment plans and choosing which would most benefit the patient. Furthermore, doctors are over scheduled with patients. They are paid for quantity of patients seen rather than quality of care provided. In the video, it mentioned that the female doctor was being scheduled for 30 patients per hour, meaning that she had two minutes each patient on average. This is not enough time for doctors, nurses, or any other health care provider to make sound decisions, let alone perform a thorough assessment of the patient. Although hospitals are a business and the business aspects needs to be successful in order to keep the doors open, I think it is ethical and morally wrong to be making such a profit off of patients by greatly inflating the costs. I believe that access to health care should be a right, not a
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.
The case of Nancy Cruzan has become one of the landmark cases for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration because of important ethical issues the case brings to light. At the time of the case, the United States Supreme Court had already established the right of an individual to refuse medical treatment. This issue therefore is not novel to the Cruzan case. Furthermore, there was not any controversy over who was the appropriate decision maker for Nancy Cruzan. The significant issue that the Cruzan case did bring to the table of medical ethics regarded whether or not a substituted decision make could choose to withdraw artificial hydration and nutrition on behalf of another individual.
There exists two possible solutions to the ethical dilemma of a terminally ill patient’s right to die: they are the legalization of physician assisted suicide and the banning of it. This paper will explore whether the legalization of PAS should be the recommended course of action or whether there are sufficient negative issues surrounding it to make the banning of it, the correct ethical choice.
In 2010, Keeley released a review that says if patient’s have a terminal illness, up to 88% will ex...
Suffering in pain and knowing that there is no hope is a horrible thing to experience as we live. Lying on a hospital bed in misery and grief because of a condition or illness that is hopeless is completely depressing to anyone. Euthanasia is one of the most controversial issues in society due to the difference in people’s point of views about dying. Although the lives of many patients can be saved with the latest breakthroughs in treatments and technology, we are still unable to find treatment for all diseases, and these patients have to go through painful or treatments that have greater risk than benefits only to prolong their life with little or no chance of full recovery. These patients struggle with physical and emotional pain for the reason that they feel like they are worthless because they can’t move or decide rationally. Euthanasia should be an option to certain terminal ill people because it allows them to choose whether they want to die or live a painful life.
Those susceptible to being put on life support include “brain dead” and “vegetative” persons. The term “brain dead” is used for individuals who lack activity within the brain, thus why some functions (i.e. swallowing and breathing) are incapable of being performed. However those in a “vegetative” state may be able to perform these tasks, despite being severely, mentally crippled (Doyle 1).
“‘The doctor of the future will no longer treat the human frame with drugs, but rather will cure and prevent disease with nutrition’” (Thomas Edison). Artificial nutrition and hydration dates back to about 3,500 years ago. During this time, Ancient Greeks and Egyptians were performing “rectal feedings”. They injected enemas to insert nutrients into the rectum to preserve health. This was to protect inflamed bowel surfaces or treat diarrhea. It was made from liquids such as wine, milk, whey and wheat or barley broths. Later on, they added eggs and brandy to the mix. Nutrition is the process of consuming food that is necessary for life, health and growth. Hydration is drinking water that is from either fluids or foods. Artificial nutrition and hydration (N&H) is a treatment that gives someone fluids and/or nutrition for their body without them taking it in their mouths and swallowing it. There has been some disagreements whether or not to withdraw or withhold artificial nutrition and hydration for end of life care. “End of life care” is when healthcare workers take care of people who are at the end of their life. Whether it is because they are in old age, very ill or injured, or sick with a disease. The disagreements exist because of it being based on if it is necessary or required to use artificial nutrition and hydration.
Imagine visiting your 85-year-old mother in the hospital after she has a debilitating stroke. You find out that, in order to survive, she requires a feeding tube and antibiotics to fight an infection. She once told you that no matter what happened, she wants to live. But the doctor refuses further life-sustaining treatment. When you ask why, you are told, in effect, "The time has come for your mother to die. All we will provide is comfort care."
Thus, despite the arguments against euthanasia, patients’ lives should not be deprived of well-being, comfort or dignity. “In the last stage of life, every person is entitled to a high standard of care and a stable environment in which his or her privacy is respected” (Policy Options, 2013). A lot of the time, patients with terminal illnesses are thought of as ‘better off dead’ or ‘not the person they used to be’. This is all the more the reason why euthanasia should be legalized in Canada. The government should relax current laws and allow doctors to participate in assisted suicide if need be and are willing. If people suffering with terminal illnesses want to die peacefully and not endure painful procedures or live off machines whilst also helping society out money wise, the option should be available.
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.
I have used this journal as a source to many of my researches before and I find them to be very reliable. Statistics stated in this particular article are well sourced, and I have not discovered any sourcing errors, as well as grammatical errors. This source is not objective, but it is not as biased as some of the other articles I have come across on the same topic. I do not believe that the article’s lack of objectivity takes away from its credibility. All of the claim are well documented, and the goal of this article is to bring light to the issue.
The editorial does not accurately depict the authors argument because of the lack of ethos. The author seems untrustworthy therefore the supporting evidence is lost in the uncertainty.