Medicine and law, the conflict of the opinion: Whose life is it anyway?
A few weeks ago, a man called Ken Harrison was died by euthanasia in the hospital.
On the afternoon of October 9th, Ken Harrison was admitted to the hospital as and emergency following a road accident. After a series of medical treatment, his condition was stabilized, all the broken bones were healed, however the ruptured spinal cord remain unrecovered which lead to the paralysis of his body. Six month after the car accident, Ken Harrison put forward the idea of euthanasia, and started to refuse any medical treatments, which was immediately rejected by the consultant physician Dr. Michael Emerson. The contradiction was intensified between Mr. Harrison and the hospital,
…show more content…
However Ken Harrison was very distrust the medical treatment, he insisted to keep his consciousness rather than take the medicine. From his conversation with other people, he often regarded himself as an object. There was a clear clue shows that he was very unsatisfied with the way people treated him. Although sometimes Ken Harrison has an unstable emotion, the junior registrar Dr. Clare Scott stated that Ken Harrison has not suffered from depression and his was totally capable of making decision. ‘I’m sure Mr. Harrison knew what he was doing. No doubt whatsoever; no slightest reservations.’ Said Mr. Kershaw. Dr. Scott also thought that Mr. Harrison has right to decide his life.
However the consultant physician Dr. Michael Emerson held a different opinion. He believed that there is something better than suicide. He said that based on his experience, Ken Harrison was suffering from a reactive depression and he was mentally unbalanced, therefore, Ken Harrison was not capable to make the decision. He said that he felt his profession of medicine was being seriously threatened because of the intervention of law, he thought that the law shouldn’t allow the patient to die unnecessarily. Dr. Barr also held the same
The purpose of this article was to inform readers of the thoughts and feelings of patients, families, and physicians. This article informs others of what is really in the thoughts of people going through physician assisted suicide. The audience can be anyone from other physicians to patients and families or anyone who wants to read about this topic. This article can help explain why physician assisted suicide has more positive than negatives. It helps to explain the thought process and feelings of someone who had to really consider this as an option.
In this paper, I will be arguing a that in the Please Let Me Die case, the patient did not give informed consent to rejecting treatment due to a variety of factors. In summary, the patient was a 25-year-old male named Dax Cowart who suffered severe burns over 65% of his body after a propane gas explosion. He had several fingers amputated and his right eye removed after he was stabilized. He was discharged with minimal use of his hands, totally blind, and needed assistance with daily activities. He asked that treatment be discontinued throughout his hospital stay and rehabilitation, but his request was denied because his physicians deemed him not competent. I believe he was not competent because of his injuries; as is said about many patients
There are many convincing and compelling arguments for and against Physician Assisted Suicide. There are numerous different aspects of this issue including religious, legal and ethical issues. However, for the purpose of this paper, I will examine the ethical concerns on both sides. There are strong pro and con arguments regarding this and I will make a case for both. It is definitely an issue that has been debated for years and will continue to be debated in years to come.
Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is a topic, which proponents often support by the affirmation of patient free will or as the exercise of patient autonomy. The purpose of this paper is to examine this argument further from an inter-disciplinary approach, regarding PAS from medical, ethical and legal standpoints and to examine the concept of free will from the philosophical discipline. Are these concepts compatible in a meaningful context and can a sound argument be constructed to support PAS on the basis of patient free will?
Euthanasia is a serious political, moral and ethics issues in society. People either strictly forbid or firmly favor euthanasia. Terminally ill patients have a fatal disease from which they will never recover, many will never sleep in their own bed again. Many beg health professionals to “pull the plug” or smother them with a pillow so that they do not have to bear the pain of their disease so that they will die faster. Thomas D. Sullivan and James Rachels have very different views on the permissibility of active and passive euthanasia. Sullivan believes that it is impermissible for the doctor, or anyone else to terminate the life of a patient but, that it is permissible in some cases to cease the employment of “extraordinary means” of preserving
Braddock and Tonelli. “Physician-Assisted Suicide.” Ethics in Medicine University of Washington Medical School. 2008. .
With the growing debate on the legality of physician assisted suicide happening in the United States,it is important for everyone to know the position that are being advocated. Having a full sense of knowledge on the conversation taking place gives people who are interested on this topic the necessary tool to draw their own conclusion on how they should feel on this particular issue. Even if someone is not interested in this topic on a cultural level, they should in a personal sense because it might affect their family or themselves one day. In a way this issue and debate affects everyone because there might be a possibility that we acquire a terminal illness, and when this happen we are either denied the option of PAS or granted that option, depending the status of it.
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.
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.
According to West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, between 1990 and 1999, a well-known advocate for physician assisted suicide, Jack Kevorkian helped 130 patients end their lives. He began the debate on assisted suicide by assisting a man with committing suicide on national television. According to Dr. Kevorkian, “The voluntary self-elimination of individual and mortally diseased or crippled lives taken collectively can only enhance the preservation of public health and welfare” (Kevorkian). In other words, Kevor...
Rachels, Jame. "Active and Passive Euthanasia." New England Journal of Medicine 292 (1975): 78-80. Print.
The sociality and culture of primates can be highly influential in their survival rates and in how successful they are as a group. Luckily, a wealth of research has been conducted to better understand the ways in which primate sociality and culture are structured, and how these structures directly correlate with survival. Some areas of study relevant to primate sociality and culture that will be examined include kinship connection, group size, and basic social unit type (BSU). Kinship is a component of primate sociality that plays a rather significant role in how primates operate as a society. A group's kinship connections can directly influence interbirth interval and survival rates.
It is obvious to the TV viewer that under the banners of compassion and autonomy, some are calling for legal recognition of a "right to suicide" and societal acceptance of "physician-assisted suicide." Suicide proponents evoke the image of someone facing unendurable suffering who calmly and rationally decides death is better than life in such a state. They argue that society should respect and defer to the freedom of choice such people exercise in asking to be killed. This essay intends to debunk this point of view on the basis of mental illness among those patients involved.
Kuhse, Helga. “Euthanasia.” A Companion to Ethics. Ed. Peter Singer. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 1991. 294-302. Print.
Robert Matz; Daniel P. Sudmasy; Edward D. Pallegrino. "Euthanasia: Morals and Ethics." Archives of Internal Medicine 1999: p1815 Aug. 9, 1999 .