Euthanasia and "Futile Care"
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."
Sound far-fetched? It's not. It's already happening.
Just as doctors once hooked people up to machines against their will, now
many bioethicists advocate that doctors be permitted to refuse
life-sustaining treatment that a patient wants but that they deem "futile"
or "inappropriate."
Alarmingly, hospitals in California and throughout the country have begun
to implement these "futile-care" policies that state, in effect: "We
reserve the right to refuse service."
Medical and bioethics journals for several years kept up a drumbeat
advocating the implementation of medical futility policies that hospitals
-- for obvious reasons -- don't publicize. The mainstream news media have
generally ignored the threat.
As a consequence, members of the public and their elected representatives
remain in the dark as "futilitarians" become empowered to hand down
unilateral death sentences.
Indeed, futile-care policies are implemented so quietly that no one knows
their extent. No one has made a systematic study of how many patients'
lives have been lost or whether futile-care decisions were reached
according to hospital policies or the law.
The idea behind futile care goes like this: The patient wants life-
sustaining treatment; the physician does not believe the quality of the
patient's life justifies the costs to the health institution or the
physical and emotional burdens of care; therefore, the doctor is entitled
to refuse further treatment (other than comfort care) as "futile" or
"inappropriate."
Treatments withheld under this policy might include antibiotics to treat
infection, medicines for fever reduction, tube feeding and hydration,
kidney dialysis or ventilator support.
Of course, physicians have never been -- nor should they be -- required to
provide medical interventions that provide no medical benefit.
For example, if a patient demands chemotherapy to treat an ulcer, the
physician should refuse. Such a "treatment" would have no medical benefit.
But this kind of "physiological futility," as it is sometimes called, is
not what modern futile-care theory is all about.
A war starting was really overwhelming for everybody but there was not time to complain, but to take actions the government quickly realized that with men fighting in the front line a demand had to be satisfied. Political and social leaders ...
Freedom Rides, Vietnam, and Social activism among the youths of America have left the 60’s with a very profound effect on our society. Without question, the decade of the 1960’s was one of the most controversial in American History. Throughout this period of social unrest, anti-war attitudes were gaining prevalence in a peace-loving subculture, and individuals began to question certain aspects of governmental policy and authority. This was the decade of peace and war, optimism and despair, cultural turbulence and frustration.
The 1960s was a decade overloaded with signifiant life changing events. From Martin Luther King Jr. to the Vietnam War, the reign of Muhammad Ali and the Beatles reaching to the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the moon landing. The result of these history changing events: a new culture emerging at the beginning of the Vietnam war in the early 60s. A radical movement would start to take off called Popular Culture. First witnessed after the Industrial revolution when amusement and entertainment got more and more appealing to society, the 60s was an era when everything changed and nothing would be the same again.
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.
Patients are ultimately responsible for their own health and wellbeing and should be held responsible for the consequences of their decisions and actions. All people have the right to refuse treatment even where refusal may result in harm to themselves or in their own death and providers are legally bound to respect their decision. If patients cannot decide for themselves, but have previously decided to refuse treatment while still competent, their decision is legally binding. Where a patient's views are not known, the doctor has a responsibility to make a decision, but should consult other healthcare professionals and people close to the patient.
Legislative bodies enacted laws restricting the employment of married women. Labor, government, and the mass media all joined in a campaign urging females to refrain from taking jobs. And the overwhelming majority of average citizens--including women--showed little interest in modifying the existing distribution of sexual roles. (Chafe 135)
Most believe that World War II benefited women in the workforce. But did it really? World War II created war-related jobs and caused a large amount of men and voluntary enlistees. During World War II women played a part in the workforce in a way that was unpredicted in the U.S. history. The two pre existing factors of moral rights and society’s stereotypes collided with one another as the traditional female gender roles were diminished from war opportunities. Two arguments arise from this upset of social norms: a milestone for women’s experience and a lack of immediate and long-lasting change in gender roles after war. World War II served as a milestone for women in work. One aspect that World War II brought change in society’s gender roles. There was the shortage of manpower needed to fill the jobs created by war. As men were enlisted into the war, men were forced to leave their current jobs which left open opportunities for the women to fill these positions. During the war men had two options in the direction that they wanted to move: battling in war, or higher end jobs that were being abandoned due to the war. Either way, men were leaving jobs that needed to be filled in some way. This gave opportunities for women to fill these open positions in the workforce. In the book The Paradox of Change:American Women in the 20th Century, a man named William Chafe asserts that the female work force increased by 50% throughout World War II (121 Chafe). Not only were women gaining jobs at home, but the war created jobs that women would be able to pursue The United States Employment Service said that 80% of the jobs in war could easily be filled by women (Cafe 122).
Drugs have been influencing the ideas, culture, and music of America for ages. Illicit narcotics have left the Union in a state of immense debt. Anti-drug policies have been dumping billions upon billions of dollars in prevention, punishment, and rehabilitation. From the roaring twenties, to the prohibition, drugs have always been fought (Bailey). Most times, the drugs start off as medicines and end up being harmful (Morris). Perhaps, the most prominent and influential eras of drug use in America are the two decades of the 60’s and twenty years later, the 80’s. It may very well be that these two decades molded America into what it is now.
The 1940’s was an interesting and critical time for the United States of America. World War II began in the late 1930’s and moved on into the 1940’s. The United States Army joined in 1941 and “when the United States entered World War II, every aspect of life in America was affected by the conflict” (The 1940’s). New opportunities arose for women because of all the men out at war, so women had the chance to show off their skills and capabilities. They operated machines in factories and worked with heavy artillery. If a person did not fight the war for their country, they made weapons for the brave soldiers. This caused a drastic increase in the growth of the economy in the United States.
...d how these determinations effect a physician’s approach to various types of critically ill patients? These types of questions come in to play when one attempts to critically analyze the differences between the types of terminally ill patients and the subtle ethical/legal nuances between withholding and withdrawing treatment. According to a review by Larry Gostin and Robert Weir about Nancy Cruzan, “…courts examine the physician’s respect for the desires of the patient and the level of care administered. A rule forbidding physicians from discontinuing a treatment that could have been withheld initially will discourage doctors from attempting certain types of care and force them prematurely to allow a patient to die. Physicians must be free to exercise their best professional judgment, especially when facing the sensitive question of whether to administer treatment.”
With the post war baby boom of the 1940s resulting in a huge shift in age demographic, the 60s became a decade belonging to the new wave of youths. Liberated and hedonistic, this affluent generation shunned the values of their parents,
... only provide patients who are sick a way out, but can keep hospitals from prolonging a patient’s life.
A recent poll founded by the Canadian Medical Association found that “only one in five doctors surveyed. . . said they would be willing to perform euthanasia if the practice were legalized. . . Twice as many – 42 percent – said they would refuse to do so” (Kirkey 1). Euthanasia is defined as giving a patient the right to die early with a physician’s assistance, and the legalization of this practice is being considered by lawmakers in many countries, including the United States. Accordingly, 42 percent of doctors in Canada are on the right side of this debate. Euthanasia should not be legalized because it violates society’s views that life is sacred, creates economic pressure for doctors, and for those countries that have legalized it, their laws are not specific enough to fully protect patients.
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
First of all, euthanasia saves money and resources. The amount of money for health care in each country, and the number of beds and doctors in each hospital are limited. It is a huge waste if we use those money and resources to lengthen the lives of those who have an incurable disease and want to die themselves rather than saving the lives of the ones with a curable ailment. When we put those patients who ask for euthanasia to death, then the waiting list for each hospital will shorten. Then, the health care money of each country, the hospital beds, and the energy of the doctors can be used on the ones who can be cured, and can get back to normal and able to continue contributing to the society. Isn’t this a better way of using money and resources rather than unnaturally extend those incurable people’s lives?