Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Four principles of medical ethics
Principles of medical ethics
Principles of medical ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Four principles of medical ethics
Extraordinary means of treatment
For many years now there have been people who center their lives on giving medical attention to sick patients in need of their care. There have also been many doctors who spend their lives developing techniques to help keep people alive as long as possible, even when the person quite possibly should have died a natural death a long time ago. Does this make what the doctor is doing wrong? Doesn’t the patient deserve a chance to live the longest and fullest life they possibly can?
These questions must be weighed on the benefits of the treatment versus the burden of the treatment. It may prolong life but will it make the life better or just lengthen the suffering that the patient has to go through. These and many other considerations must be taken in account in order to assure the best decision for the patient. Money can also be a factor in extraordinary treatment. Some people can’t afford to have their loved ones in a hospital for very long especially if they are in a coma or other severe illness, and might not be able to afford a long-term hospital bill. Also if there is a very slim chance of success with the procedure it may not be worth trying to save or preserve the life of the patient. Sometimes you may need to take the individual’s opinion on the treatments advice. If they are able to give a competent decision shouldn’t it be used to dete...
The NFL position in this article makes them look very greedy and indifferent about the overall health of their football players. One of the ethical perspectives that can be used to analyze the NFL's position in this article is deontology. Deontology is the perspective where rules is the defining factor for ethical decisions. From the deontology perspective it makes it seem that the NFL has decided not to follow the rules and even blurred the lines as to what potential injuries their players can get. They wanted their injured players to play without having to follow through the with proper procedure in verifying that the players are in conditions healthy enough to play. It looks as if the NFL cares only about bringing in money and not care about
America’s newfound favorite pastime, football, came from a bizarre chain of events. Football started when a soccer player got fed up with just kicking the ball, so he picked up the ball and ran to the goal. His actions of picking up the ball and running with it fathered a new European sport, rugby, which was soon brought over to American shores, and was altered slightly, the shape of the ball and a few other small rules. The sport became organized into a league and produced the NFL(National Football League). The NFL had a slow beginning, but has picked up popularity, currently having a 9 billion dollar yearly revenue. Playing football comes with great costs, including physical and mental health deterioration, plus the amount of time spent prepping before game day. Which can pose several questions, “Why suffer for a game, Is it worth the money? Is it worth the fame? How great is the cost?” I believe that football, should have stricter regulations for the treatment of injuries, along with informing players of just how devastating a concussion can be, along with the other major injuries that commonly occur while playing football.
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
Playing football comes with several risks factors that players’ acknowledge prior to playing the game starting a young age. Regardless, these players still chose to play the game, which they end up loving and cherishing despite all the risks accompanied with it. Football is one of the toughest sports in the world; it takes a certain amount of strength, speed, and aggressiveness to play 48 minutes of hard-nosed football. However, the National Football League (NFL) is in the midst of a controversial issue. Is the NFL getting soft? This has been a debatable issue for several years. While some believe that implementing all these rules in the NFL is progressively turning the game soft, others say that the NFL is not getting soft; it is just trying to make the game safer for its players.
As selfish as it might sound, the decision of ending your life to avoid suffering is more about ending the suffering of your loved ones. It is way more painful to watch your family being sad, crying, getting frustrated and tired because there is nothing else they could do. As much as family tries to hide their distress, or as much as they try to avoid thinking about the inevitable, sometimes the feelings can't be avoid. I wouldn't want my family to go through this, and I wouldn't want to watch them being miserable. It is just not fair for them. Why wait longer for something that will eventually happen, especially when the patient is bed bound and has to depend on others for the most basic needs. I couldn't and wouldn't want to do that to my loved ones and to myself.
Since its debute, Kimberlianne Podlas discusses how “CSI has been attributed with causing a rash of unjustified acquittals, exerting on trials what is called the CSI Effect.” This refers to how CSI influences or impacts a jury’s interpretation of a case. She goes on to say that, “Even though forensic evidence is prevalent on CSI, it is a factor in only a small portion of real-life cases.” Additionally, “many of the techniques shown on CSI do not exist, and this has led “forensic scientists to complain of the near infallibility of forensic science after watching a few episodes of CSI.” The CSI Effect has caused these viewers of the program, who have gone onto become jurors, to expect the presentation of forensic evidence in order to prove their cases, and without it, they are unlikely to reach a guilty verdict. This has led prosecutors to expect the need to present forensic evidence as a prerequisite to conviction. Even with eyewitnesses and other findings to offset this lack of forensic evidence, many unjustified acquittals have resulted from this mindset as jurors do not believe a case can be proven beyond reasonable
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 patient might just be waiting for the disease they have caught to kill them, but it does not always go so quickly . ¨Ending a patient's life by injection, with the added solace that it will be quick and painless, is much easier than this constant physical and emotional care¨ (Ezekiel Emanuel, 1997, p. 75). If a patient is terminally ill and will not get better, it allows them to end the suffering. If the physician has to keep a constant eye on the patient and they need constant care and the patient is not getting better, the option is there if they want to end all of it they can. Sometimes dealing with all of the physical care like medications and not being able to live completely normal with a disease is hard. It can get extremely hard and stressful that all the patients can think about doing is ending it, this alternative gives the patient a painless option. According to Somerville (2009), ¨… respect for people's rights to autonomy and self determination means everyone has a right to die at a time of their choosing¨ ( p.4). The patient deserves to choose whether they want to keep fighting or if they cannot go any farther. The patient should not have to push through a fight they have been fighting and know they cannot win. According to Kevorkian ¨the patient decides when it's best to go.¨ Nobody tells the patient when they have to end their lives, they understand their body and know
After thoroughly evaluating the positives and negatives impacting the sport entity, The NFL is really in a tough position by far. More and more players continually are being diagnosed and the worst part about it is, to fix the issue of retired players being exposed to this disease the league must fix its current game. Roger Goodell is in a tough position because like Bernard stated if you are going to practice the “safety rule” in today’s day and age, defensive players are going to be more concerned about getting fined then making the plays for its respective team. The game will lose integrity. The NFL must find a way were it can coup with everything because yes older players are suffering, current players are displeased, but what’s going to happen when parents turn away from football? The NFL may see it’s last snap.
Some issues that may upraise for the Saints will be lawsuits, suspensions, and or rejections from the NFL (“New Orleans”, n.d.). This is a choice that the players agreed to just for some for extra cash. It is not like these players do not make enough money as it is. Due to the players agreeing to the kill shots, they face the same consequences as the coaches ordering them. The organization that the Saints have with their players is sloppy (Battista, 2012). If the coaches want to play dirty and pay their own players to hurt opposing players to win; then their system of doing things is very
In order to understand how to compile evidence for criminal cases, we must understand the most effective types of evidence. This topic is interesting because there are ample amounts of cases where defendants have gotten off because of the lack of forensic evidence. If we believe forensic evidence is so important and it affects our decisions, then maybe we need to be educated on the reality of forensic evidence. If we can be educated, then we may have a more successful justice system. If we have a more successful justice system than the public could gain more confidence that justice will be served. In order to do this, we must find what type of evidence is most effective, this can be done by examining different types of evidence.
Pennington and Hastie (1992) found that when jurors were presented with the evidence in a chronological manner, they were much more likely to find the defendant guilty than when this evidence was given in a discrepant and non-structured way. This led them to propose a story model which is believed to be widely used by jurors to make sure they evaluated all the evidence in a strategic and sensible way. The model consists of creating a narrative based on a careful evaluation of all the collected evidence to assure that the jurors fully comprehend the case. This appears like a fairly reliable system to assess a crime. So why so much controversy? Yet again we should remind ourselves that jurors are untrained laypeople and as laypeople they do not always use the most systematic way of approaching incoming information. This might for example occur when the presented information is out of the jurors’ expertise and they are having hard time making estimations about the extent of a crime; in that case they are more likely to rely on heuristic processing (Bornstein & Greene, 2011). This is quite a rapid and automatic process enabling people to use shortcuts that help them to understand the issue better. When using this technique, jurors are more likely to attend to the peripheral cues, such as the confidence of an eyewitness, credibility of an expert,
...t’s family should be able decide for the patient whether or not prolonging their life is moral.
4). This is written in a negative tone implying that a change needed to happen in order for them to be more successful; this change being an increase in visual evidence. Expressing a very similar opinion is Michael Diamant, a business attorney. He states the following, “What I’m trying to do with the jury is to focus the issue so they can understand [it] in a clear graphic way, and take away all the noise around it” (INSERT, 2012, para. 6). This will allow the jury to focus solely on what’s important, influencing their decision in the way that the lawyers want it to. Speaking on the contrary to his previous statement, Carney argues, “Lawyers can get overenthusiastic about creating visuals. They forget they have to be directly connected to the evidence.” He then explains that the jury will get tired of it. The jury wants to be engaged and informed. This requires a balance between visual evidence and non-visual evidence. To put the summary of this article into perspective, it’s easy to use an example: the murder case of Susan Wright. Visual evidence will surely help the jury understand the actions that took place on the night of the murder. But what’s important and what’s superfluous? Some important visual evidence for the jury to see
Doctors prefer to never have to euthanize a patient. It is a contradiction of everything they have been taught for a doctor to euthanize someone, because a doctor’s job is to do everything in their power to keep the patient alive, not assist them in suicide. The majority of doctors who specialize in palliative care, a field focused on quality of life for patients with severe and terminal illnesses, think legalizing assisted suicide is very unnecessary. This is due to the fact that if patients do not kill themselves, they will end up dying on a ventilator in the hospital under the best possible care available, with people around them trying to keep them as comfortable as possible. Legalized euthanasia everywhere has been compared to going down a slippery slope. Officials believe that it could be done over excessively and the fear of assisted suicide numbers rising greatly is a great fear. This is why euthanasia is such a controversial subject worldwide. But, even though it is a very controversial subject, euthanasia is humane. Every doctor also has a say in whether or not they choose to euthanize a patient or not, leaving only the doctors who are willing to do this type of practice, for euthanizing patients. Medicine and drugs prescribed by a doctor for pain or suffering can not always help a person to the extent they desire, even with the help of doctors