Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues for mental health
Ethical issues for mental health
Ethical issues for mental health
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical issues for mental health
I believe that individuals should not be involuntarily treated because there has been a history of people being wrongly treated for acting deviant or breaking norms rather than having a mental disorder. As we have seen throughout research done there is inconsistency on how is dangerous to themselves and others. People may make the case for involuntarily treating those who are threat to themselves and others but psychiatrists have a tendency to over predict individuals who seem dangerous. There has been history of involuntarily treating women and homosexuals because they were acting deviant and thus labeled crazy and put in mental institutions. It was later found it that it was unethical and many of them were not mentally disordered. Involuntary
In this paper, the readers will learn that I, Chantiara Johnson, played the role of a therapist. My friend, who is a college Sophomore played the role of client. I will use the techniques that I learned during the first three weeks of this course; these techniques will help me conduct the interview with my client. Throughout this interview, I will mock and reflect a therapy session of a client who is facing the feeling of loneliness and the feeling of not being enough.
Involuntary hospitalization is a legal procedure used to require individuals with mental health disorders to receive treatment withoaut their care. I am addressing this topic because there is an enormous problem in the medical field with treatment care. Involuntary health care treatment should not be forced upon because it can cause more harm than damage.
Torture, for weeks, for months, for years, but it is somehow plausible to consider it help. The sane being shoved into a psych ward, drugged, and forced with erroneous treatments, yet this is regarded as the panacea? Mental institutes do not solve everyone’s problems. Forced treatment on the resistive or illegitimate mentally ill exemplifies the need to regain civil rights for patients. The current laws applied to the topic remain not enough to withhold these patients’ civil rights. Also, patients bias court cases while influenced by prescribed drugs. The stories and results of these foul acts are tremendously horrifying. As Americans we are born with our civil rights therefore these persons deserve justice.
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.
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.
There is a medical pathologist who agrees. Dr. Kevorkian is a medical pathologist who helped dozens of people die becoming a celebrity, known as Dr. Death who helped over 130 people end their lives (Schneider par1).“ People from around the country traveled to the Detroit to get help from Dr. Death. Dr. Kevorkian developed a system to help achieve two goals ensuring the patient’s comfort and protecting himself against criminal conviction. He required patients who desired to die to express that clearly, and then he would bring in mental professionals to test the sanity of the person. After that the patient was giving a month to thinking over their decision just in case they wanted to change their minds. Dr Kevorkian also took videos interviews of t...
Although euthanasia and assisted suicide are frowned upon, legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide would be beneficial to society. Through many forms of euthanasia and assisted suicide, people choose to end their own lives to relieve their suffering, to keep their autonomy and their desire to be able to perform their daily activities, and to prevent the fear of burdening their family. Even though euthanasia and assisted suicide are not considered the norm by doctors, the goal of a doctor should be to relieve the pain of a patient in any way the patient requests.
Restraints are defined as, “a measure or condition that keeps someone or something under control or within limits” (Google 1). How would someone feel if he or she were restrained from natural movement or thinking? In the medical field, restraints are meant to be used to prevent harm of the patient and others with a doctor's order, yet this is not always the case. Restraints in today's time hold a negative connotation although are necessary for patient safety.
“If you truly believe in the value of life, you care about all of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society.” This thought-provoking quote by Joni Eareckson Tada conveys a sense of obligation held by society to take up the roles of caretakers for the ones that cannot aid their own health. In the relativity of physician-assisted suicide, the word “care” in the previous statement is defined by helping those in need, in this case, pertaining to health issues with a potentially terminal outcome. When analyzing this controversial subject, one must consider all aspects of the medical context as well as the ethical conviction that pairs with it. Should terminally ill patients have the right to a physician-assisted suicide simply to protect their civil liberties? Or is this option just a devised method opposing the purpose of doctors and physicians and the morals of civilization playing the role of a scapegoat and devaluing human life? Although on the surface, physician-assisted suicide for patients in critical condition appears to be a plausible remedy, when further inspected, a practical perspective arises saying this so-called final solution is morally and ethically wrong considering the responsibility of medics, society, and law makers.
Currently, physician-assisted suicide or death is illegal in all states except Oregon, Vermont, Montana and Washington. Present law in other states express that suicide is not a crime, but assisting in suicide is. Supporters of legislation legalizing assisted suicide claim that the moral right to life should encompass the right to voluntary death. Opponents of assisted suicide claim that society has a moral and civic duty to preserve the lives of innocent persons. There is a slippery slope involving the legalizing assisted suicide. Concern that assisted suicide allowed on the basis of mercy or compassion, can and will lead to the urging of the death for morally unjustifiable reasons is understandable. However, legalization can serve to prevent the already existent practice of underground physician-assisted suicide if strict laws to ensure that the interests of the patients are primary are installed and enforced. When a patient asks for assistance in dying, their wishes should be respected as long as the patient is free from coercion and competent enough to give informed consent. The intent of this work is to examine the legalization of assisted suicide in Oregon and the Netherlands and to argue that assisted suicide is morally and ethically acceptable in theory despite some unintended consequences of its implementation.
The voluntary active euthanasia is legitimately moral. It is morally right for a person to seek euthanasia because it is their freedom or autonomy to control their own lives. It ends the suffering of the patient without harming other people. Furthermore, it prevents the person to suffer by giving him/her lethal injection or medication that prevents a person to die slowly with pain. On the other hand, the arguments against euthanasia are not sound. A thorough assessment will protect patient who request euthanasia for the benefits of others. A patient who seek for euthanasia does not use him/herself as means, but as ends to respect his/her own humanity. Furthermore, God as a benevolent will not allow a person to suffer which endorse the purpose of euthanasia – to end suffering. Therefore, voluntary active euthanasia should be legalized in the United States.
Physician Assisted Suicide is choosing when you die, but you have to be terminally ill and have about 6 months to live. There are precautions you have to take. I am for the Physician Assisted death because it is sad to see a person you love be suffering. I personally saw my grandmother pass away from lung cancer. It was nothing happy to see, but all she wanted the last few months of life was to die. She had always lived a healthy life, but cancer is in your genes already. So, you have to be checking for signs of any sickness, as far as side effects. If it were legal in a lot of states patients would do it, so they can end their suffering. And some patients keep getting revived “Every morning I asked his doctor for a “no-code”
Physician-assisted suicide is the voluntary termination of an individual’s life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. The issue of whether doctors have the right to help their patients die has been a controversy for centuries. Correspondingly, this term illustrates the case of Dr. Jack Kevorkian who helped a 52-year-old Lou Gehrig's disease patient commit suicide. The Hippocratic Oath, which is historically taken by physicians, proclaims: “I will keep the sick from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” After ruling in 1997 that Americans do not have the Constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide,
The right to die has raised many legal and ethical issues in the United States. We as a society rely on doctors in time of agony and discomfort because we believe in their healing capabilities. So when doctors deviate from the preservation of life and promote death, it creates an imbalance between what is ethical and what is best for the patient. The general rule of palliative care is to treat and care for patients, but when those patients are in a considerable amount of pain, should they not have the right to a choose their course of treatment? In this great nation, the greatest liberty that we have as humans is to live and die in our own right in accordance with our personal beliefs and free will.
An innumerable amount of individuals believe that life is a beautiful, extraordinary, and overall amazing gift. So, why would a human being choose to have this remarkable gift taken away from him or her? The answer to this question is quite simple. All over the world people are in such immense pain and suffering, that their last wish is for their lives to be taken away in a peaceful approach. The solution to a painless death is euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, commonly referred to as PAS. Active euthanasia is the process of inducing death upon a human being in a harmless, painless, and gentle way by an injection. Passive euthanasia is the removal of life-support or stopping treatments that may keep the patient alive for longer (Gale). Both forms of Euthanasia are done only with the consent of the patient who wishes to bring their life to an end. Death is the last chance of peace for many people, and euthanasia makes this possible.