The goal of medicine: restore health, minimize harm, and maximize benefits. In many cases, end-of-life patients may get to a point where resuscitation poses harm rather than benefits. The ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ (DNR) orders allow a patient to decide whether or not a healthcare professional may resuscitate them in the event of cardiac or respiratory distress. However, the topic is controversial as it sparks debates concerning ethics. In a speech to families of hospice patients, Dr. David Jones passionately proves the need for Do Not Resuscitate orders to offer optimal care for patients by explaining the reality of resuscitation, the power of advance directives, and the necessity of compassion. In reality, resuscitation presents a complex medical …show more content…
Dr. Jones’s focus on emotional appeal works towards his purpose by highlighting the compassionate and humane reality of this medical choice. He then presents uplifting diction to effectively communicate the advantages of DNR orders. He establishes that DNRs are “compassionate” (para. 2). 5) and “empowering” (para. 2). 5) for end-of-life care as they can “alleviate” (para. 2). 5) Additional suffering. Dr. Jones’s selection of optimistic words supporting his last point drives home his argument by supporting DNR orders once again in a positive manner. It contrasts the negative perception of DNRs mentioned earlier in the speech to a more positive reality. This uplifting diction works towards the purpose by emphasizing dignity and respect for a patient’s wishes communicated within a DNR. Dr. David Jones advocates for DNR orders by revealing the true effects of resuscitation, the significance of advance directives, and by calling for empathy in end-of-life care. To honor a patient’s wishes throughout their life, Do Not Resuscitate orders must remain valid and discussed among those it impacts. DNR orders allow everyone the deserved experience of peace and comfort during final
The boundaries of right to die with dignity are hard to determine. Keeping the terminal patient comfortable is the purpose of comfort care, however there could be a very thin line between what we consider terminal sedation and euthanasia. In theory, comfort care is quite different from euthanasia. Keeping the patient comfortable and letting the nature take its course is at the core of comfort measures (Gamliel, 2012). Yet, the line between keeping comfortable and facilitating death is often blurry. Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering (Gamliel, 2012). The purpose of this paper is to highlight the ethical issue of keeping comfortable vs. hastening death, and the ethical principles involved. Facilitating or hastening death is considered unethical or even illegal.
This can be seen in the case study as ethical and legal arise in resuscitation settings, as every situation will have its differences it is essential that the paramedic has knowledge in the areas of health ethics and laws relating to providing health care. The laws can be interpreted differently and direction by state guidelines may be required. Paramedics face ethical decisions that they will be required to interpret themselves and act in a way that they believe is right. Obstacles arise such as families’ wishes for the patients’ outcome, communicating with the key stakeholders is imperative in making informed and good health practice decision. It could be argued that the paramedics in the case study acted in the best interest of the patient as there was no formal directive and they did not have enough information regarding the patients’ wishes in relation to the current situation. More consultation with the key stakeholders may have provided a better approach in reducing the stress and understanding of why the resuscitation was happening. Overall, ethically it could be argued that commencing resuscitation and terminating once appropriate information was available is the right thing to do for the
Braddock, Clarence, and Mark Tonelli. "Physician Aid-in-Dying: Ethical Topic in Medicine." Ethics in Medicine. University of Washington, 2009. Web. 3 March 2015.
Currently, in the United States, 12% of states including Vermont, Oregon, and California have legalized the Right to Die. This ongoing debate whether or not to assist in death with patients who have terminal illness has been and is still far from over. Before continuing, the definition of Right to Die is, “an individual who has been certified by a physician as having an illness or physical condition which can be reasonably be expected to result in death in 24 months or less after the date of the certification” (Terminally Ill Law & Legal Definition 1). With this definition, the Right to die ought to be available to any person that is determined terminally ill by a professional, upon this; with the request of Right to Die, euthanasia must be
Mohr, M., & Kettler, D. (1997). Ethical aspects of resuscitation. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 253.
Terminally ill patients deserve the right to have a dignified death. These patients should not be forced to suffer and be in agony their lasting days. The terminally ill should have this choice, because it is the only way to end their excruciating pain. These patients don’t have
The American Nurses Association (ANA) thinks that nurses should stay away from doing euthanasia, or assisting in doing euthanasia because it is against the Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements (ANA, 2001; herein referred to as The Code). Overall, nurses are also advised to deliver a quality of care what include respect compassion and dignity to all their patients. For people in end-of-life, nursing care should also focus on the patient’s comfort, when possible the dying patient should be pain free. Nurses have also the obligation to support the patient but also the patient’s family members during these difficult moments. We must work to make sure that patients and family members are well informed about every option that is
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
One of the greatest dangers facing chronic and terminally ill patients is the grey area regarding PAS. In the Netherlands, there are strict criteria for the practice of PAS. Despite such stringencies, the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (1992) found 28% of the PAS cases in the Netherlands did not meet the criteria. The evidence suggests some of the patient’s lives may have ended prematurely or involuntarily. This problem can be addressed via advance directives. These directives would be written by competent individuals explaining their decision to be aided in dying when they are no longer capable of making medical decisions. These interpretations are largely defined by ones morals, understanding of ethics, individual attitudes, religious and cultural values.
In today's society, one of the most controversial health-care-related ethical issues is assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. Assisted suicide is not to be confused with ethically justified end-of-life decisions and actions. Nurses have a responsibility to deliver comprehensive and benevol...
The approach of physician-assisted suicide respects an individual’s need for personal dignity. It does not force the terminally ill patient to linger hopelessly, and helplessly, often at great cost to their psyche. It drive’s people mad knowing they are going to die in a short period of time, suffering while they wait in a hospital bed.
The end-of-life nurse’s primary objective is to provide comfort and compassion to patients and their families during an extremely difficult time. They must satisfy all “physical, psychological, social, cultural and spiritual needs” of the patient and their family. (Wu & Volker, 2012) The nurse involves their patient in care planning, as well as educating them about the options available. They must follow the wishes of the patient and their family, as provided in the patient’s advance directive if there is one available. It is i...
As a result, life-sustaining procedures such as ventilators, feeding tubes, and treatments for infectious and terminal diseases are developing. While these life-sustaining methods have positively influenced modern medicine, they also inadvertently cause terminal patients extensive pain and suffering. Previous to the development of life-sustaining procedures, many people died in the care of their own home, however, today the majority of Americans take their last breath lying in a hospital bed. As the advancement of modern medicine continues, physicians and patients are going to encounter life-altering trials and tribulations. Arguably, the most controversial debate in modern medicine is the discussion of the ethical choice for physician-assisted suicide.
The care of patients at the end of their live should be as humane and respectful to help them cope with the accompanying prognosis of the end of their lives. The reality of this situation is that all too often, the care a patient receives at the end of their life is quite different and generally not performed well. The healthcare system of the United States does not perform well within the scope of providing the patient with by all means a distress and pain free palliative or hospice care plan. To often patients do not have a specific plan implemented on how they wish to have their end of life care carried out for them. End of life decisions are frequently left to the decision of family member's or physicians who may not know what the patient needs are beforehand or is not acting in the patient's best wishes. This places the unenviable task of choosing care for the patient instead of the patient having a carefully written out plan on how to carry out their final days. A strategy that can improve the rate of care that patients receive and improve the healthcare system in general would be to have the patient create a end of life care plan with their primary care physician one to two years prior to when the physician feels that the patient is near the end of their life. This would put the decision making power on the patient and it would improve the quality of care the patient receives when they are at the end of their life. By developing a specific care plan, the patient would be in control of their wishes on how they would like their care to be handled when the time of death nears. We can identify strengths and weakness with this strategy and implement changes to the strategy to improve the overall system of care with...
The Handmaid’s Tale is a dystopian novel written by the Canadian author Margaret Atwood. In this book, Atwood shows that no one is a beneficiary in a totalitarian, patriarchal society like Gilead Republic by revealing the oppression facing by different characters in the story. Even though this book does not have a sophisticated setup for background, Atwood still successfully ties the story to the real world that we live in and leads us to think about the question she asks in the book. Since this book causes people’s profound rethinking of the problems that we are facing now (e.g., infertility, low birth rate, public good vs. personal rights) and the writing is fantastic, it is definitely a worth reading book.