More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of robotics in health care
Ethical issues with medical technologies
Advantages and disadvantages of healthcare robots
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
RIP Machine essay
Technology is changing every day in our lives. From leapfrog technology to help us become better as we start to learn as little kids to saving lives and predicting rate of survival. Technology changes rapidly to help us and make everyone's life better. Our life may become easier thanks to technology, but what about all of the malfunctions or inaccurate information technology may bring us. Starting at the rate of survival, following the age of the patient, ending it with the reliability of the technology. Will all of this be right to prolong life just by using a machine. From the story “Medical Technology and Ethical Issues” by William E Thompson and Joseph V Hickey. I’ll discuss why I think we should not prolong life with medical technology machines like the RIP Machine
…show more content…
Doctors, nurses, and other occupational jobs are always in a predicament to predict the survival rate of patients whether it is from an organ transplant to having a disease like cancer.
“Medical Technology and Ethical Issues” by Thompson and Hickey discusses the RIP machine, which determines the survival rate of a patient. The RIP machine may suggest certain treatments for a patient that has a ninety-five percent rate of survival, but how many of those treatments will help that patient to live better or to even just extend their lifespan for years. In “Medical Technology and Ethical Issues” supporters of the new technology say that the machine basically gives out data for the medical staff to make a decision. While others believe that doctors should not trust getting information off of the computers to save the lives of
others. Personally with the age of patients and how bad their sickness or the condition they are in it would be a big factor to me if I was someone in the medical field. I had done research on the Benefits and the Complications of Heart Transplant last year as a senior at Middletown High School for my senior project while doing the research and finding out that there is not many resources to help people who are in need of any transplant and the amount of people on the waiting list. There are many hearts on the waiting list for a transplant and if the RIP machine was to make a decision on who gets a heart you would not know when the wrong occurrence will occur when the wrong life of someone was destroyed or the wrong treatments were suggested by a machine that had a wrong malfunction. The malfunction can occur when a staff from the medical field puts the wrong information of the patient. Five percent of the time it is wrong as stated from “Medical Technology and Ethical Issues” but as humans we don’t know when that will occur. Supporters of the RIP machine will say that the RIP machine helps take pressure off the doctor and medical staff. Another thing that supporters will say about the machine is that time would not be wasted and things will be more efficient. In “Medical Technology and Ethical Issues” advocates of the machine think that it brings out data and information to help doctors The RIP machine could be very reliable in many ways. Even though it is the correct ninety-five percent of the time when will a medical staff know when it is wrong? A serious problem will occur, then which patient truly had a higher rate of survival and was the recommended treatment correct. How a doctor who’s will was at fault and which family will be hurt and who will have a job secured. Another thing that we all know is that source is limited everywhere and in hospitals we don’t know how many RIP Machines there is in a hospital and how effective they are in saving lives of many. With technology changing in our everyday lives. I disagree with prolonging life with a technology like the RIP machine from our survival rate as patients dealing with sickness or diseases. The age we are in and the reliability of the technology
Today, there are so many legal dilemmas dominating trial for the courts to make a sound legal decision on whose right in a complicated situation. Despite the outcome of the case, the disagreement usually has a profound effect on the healthcare organization, and the industry as a whole. Many cases are arguments centered around if the issue is a legal or moral principle. Regardless what the situation maybe, the final decision is left to the courts to differentiate between the legality issues at hand opposed to justifying a case based on moral rules. According to Pozgar (2012), an ethical dilemma arises in situations where a choice must be made between unpleasant alternative. It can occur whenever a choice involves giving up something good and suffering something bad, no matter what course of action is taken (p. 367). In this paper, I will discuss cases that arose in the healthcare industry that have been tried and brought to justice by the United States court system.
...ver her, not bent with concern, but only standing straight, arms folded. And he remembered thinking then that f she died, he was certain he wouldn't cry." (Bradbury 41). This shows how the technicians lack of concern for Mildred is similar to the lack of concern he and Mildred had each other; Technology makes us les human. Therefore, Technology is bad for alternatives way for people because it replace humanity.
When a patient’s/family’s religious beliefs go against recommended medical treatment, it brings up an ethical issue. If the patient is a minor, this makes the case even more complex. In such a case, the parents would need to be evaluated to see if they were properly representing their child’s best interest. Depending on the child’s age, the child would need to be consulted to see if he/she meets the criteria of having the capacity to make his/her own medical decisions. Finally, the physician needs to be consulted to determine what his/her beliefs are on the case and under what circumstances would he be willing to perform the surgery.
There has been some ethical issues surrounding the development and use of technology, that would consist of some advancements, such as “when in vitro fertilization is applied in medical practice and leads to the production of spare embryos, the moral question is what to do with these embryos” (Shi & Singh, 2008, p. 182). As for ethical dilemmas that comes into play with “gene mapping of humans, genetic cloning, stem cell research, and others areas of growing interest to scientist” (Shi & Singh, 2008, p. 182). “Life support technology raises serious ethical issues, especially in medical decisions regarding continuation or cessation of mechanical support, particularly when a patient exists in a permanent vegetative state” (Shi & Singh, 2008, p. 182). Health care budgets are limited throughout this world, making it hard for advancements yet even harder to develop the advancements with restraints. Which brings us back to the “social, ethical, and legal constraints, public and private insurers face the problem deciding whether or not to cover novel treatments” 188. Similarly what was mentioned before the decisions about “new reproductive techniques such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection in vitro fertilization (ICSIIVF), new molecular genetics predictive tests for hereditary breast cancer, and the newer drugs such as sildenafil (Viagra) for sexual dysfunction” (Giacomini, 2005).
Tom Harpur, in his 1990 article in the Toronto Star - "Human dignity must figure in decisions to prolong life" - presents numerous arguments in support of his thesis that the use of advanced medical technology to prolong life is often immoral and unethical, and does not take into consideration the wishes of the patient or their human dignity. However, it must be noted that the opening one-third of the article is devoted to a particular "human interest" story which the author uses to illustrate his broader argument, as well as to arouse pity among readers to support his view that human life should not always be prolonged by medical technology. This opening section suggests that a critical analysis of Harpur 's arguments may find widespread use of logical fallacies in support of the article 's thesis. In this essay I will argue that, given how greatly
Technology is supposed to be seen as such an advancement and great accomplishment. What others may not always know is sometimes it isn’t all fun and games, it can be dangerous. As seen when we created the atomic bomb and guns, their only purpose is to destroy and cause pain to others. Although they are not always in use, they are a constant threat to our well being. We need to take into consideration the positives and the negatives of the technology we create today.
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.
Freudenheim, M. (2010, December 13). Panel set to study safety of electronic patient data. The New York Times. Retrieved from Http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/business/14records.html?_r=1&sq=healthcare informatics patient records&st=nyt&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1299414338-50ipQCu8c0TGV6j+8bTQUA
There are questions about transplant allocation in regards to the four major ethical principles in medical ethics: beneficence, autonomy, nonmaleficence and justice. Beneficence is the “obligation of healthcare providers to help people” that are in need, autonomy is the “right of patients to make choices” in regards to their healthcare, nonmaleficence, is the “duty of the healthcare providers to do no harm”, and justice is the “concept of treating everyone in a fair manner” ("Medical Ethics & the Rationing of Health Care: Introduction", n.d., p. 1).
Think of it this way, the longer the life expectancy, the longer the patient suffers.... ... middle of paper ... ... He was left blind and was slowly deteriorating. The pain was unrelenting.
Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician acting indirectly in the death of the patient -- providing the means for death. The ethics of PAS is a continually debated topic. The range of arguments in support and opposition of PAS are vast. Justice, compassion, the moral irrelevance of the difference between killing and letting die, individual liberty are many arguments for PAS. The distinction between killing and letting die, sanctity of life, "do no harm" principle of medicine, and the potential for abuse are some of the arguments in favor of making PAS illegal. However, self-determination, and ultimately respect for autonomy are relied on heavily as principle arguments in the PAS issue.
In this diverse society we are confronted everyday with so many ethical choices in provision of healthcare for individuals. It becomes very difficult to find a guideline that would include a border perspective which might include individual’s beliefs and preference across the world. Due to these controversies, the four principles in biomedical ethic which includes autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice help us understand and explain which medical practices are ethical and acceptable. These principles are not only used to protect the rights of a patient but also the physician from being violated.
The term bioethics refers to the moral principles used when one is making a decision while in the healthcare field. It is the moral compass that humans use to decide what is the right thing to do versus the wrong thing to do when faced with an ethical dilemma. These decisions may be based on principles, reasoning, personal beliefs, emotions, natural science, or other influential factors.
No one knows how technology is going to advance in the next thousand years, but we do know that with in the past hundred years we have invented some amazing things such as television and computers. A Utilitarian would agree with life extension because it allows a person to do pleasurable things longer thus increasing over all happiness, and with a technological increase it will allow the discovery of new pleasures. Virtue theory would have a different approach when it comes to extending one’s life and the new technologies it brings, and that is it would make available more chances for virtuous acts. At the moment there are hundreds upon thousands of projects underway for advancements in technology and in our current life time there is a chance we will not even see half of them. With life extension we would all have a chance to live long enough to enjoy all the new
Over the course of many centuries, medical technology has developed to a great extent. Studies show that recent equipment has evolved more in the last ten to twenty years than in the past thousand years. Before human time, people learned to treat themselves by just using natural substances. Now-a-days, our hi-tech systems in the medical field have been created for the most effective tools for a high level of patient care. While they advance the tools, it will then allow for quicker diagnosis, less pain, and fewer costs, which in the end will help save more lives. Some people are accepting that modern technology can buy them more time to live while others might find it quite alarming because they fear they have a loss of control. In places like hospitals, nursing homes, and households, patients and doctors are using this technology all the time. Unfortunately, not always is the equipment going to be successful to patient care; there could be a few cases where something could go wrong.