In writing about life support many people assume that the family should be the ones to decide whether they should keep or remove their loved one from life support. Although doctors do not say so directly they apparently assume that it is better to remove them from life support. In discussions of doctors one controversial issue has been that they will no longer be suffering. On the other hand, families contend that there is still hope. Others even maintain for that what if. My own view is that they should allow the families to make the decision whether to keep them on life support or not.
When organs like the lungs, heart, brain or the system fail in the body life support helps them stay alive, until the body is ready to take over again, even
…show more content…
It gives patients the chance to live longer or even fully recover, and it gives hope to the families. It might be a patients wish to stay on life support until they die. While a patient is on life support it allows the families to come to terms with death. At first families cannot accept that their loved one is dying, but they come to realize that they have no chance and accept it. They learn to let go and unplugging them from life support is not as hard. As well they do not have to keep thinking about the ‘what ifs’. One major positive thing about life support is organ donation. Even though it is a difficult time with the loss of a loved one it gives life to many …show more content…
When the decision is made by the family to remove them from life support they take it day by day removing one at a time not all at once. According to Director Patricia A. Grady, “The decision to remove a loved one from life supporting treatment is typically very traumatic for families, clinics may need to help family members develop realistic expectations” (1). Director Patricia A. Grady’s point is that the clinics just do not care for their dying patient but as well as for the family. The clinics help the family out to cope with their
Mclean, Paul C. “Texas is keeping a dead woman on life support despite her family’s wishes.” the guardian. The Guardian. 10 Jan. 2014. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.
Ken Berger believes that Life Support for elderly patient isn’t benefiting them and is actually causing more harm to them. According to the “Dying on life support: is it fair? Article The Author Dr. Berger states in most cases when the end is near should doctors prolong life artificially? Dr. Berger the medical doctor at the Bellevue Hospital in New York City states how patients that are on life support in the intensive care unit are not showing signs of likelihood of surviving. A very well-known patients of Dr. Berger who is severely ill and he isn’t showing any signs of getting better but actually is showing signs of his body getting ill (Leung n.p). By law Dr. Berger must keep him alive which, he isn’t very pleased about it because he finds it very useful for the staff and also for the
In A Tender Hand in the Presence of Death, Heather, the nurse, would put in IVs and feeding tubes in hopes of prolonging hospice care even when they were ineffective in order to give more time to the families who were having trouble letting go (MacFarquhar, 2016). In my personal situation, I can relate, as two of my grandparents have passed away from cancer and suffered for a long time before passing. Although it was incredibly sad and our families bargained for more time, there was some peace in knowing that the suffering had come to an end once they passed. For our own selfish reasons, we want as much time as possible with our loved ones who are suffering and close to death, but in reality, the decision for assisted suicide should only concern the individual whose life it
Is it moral to withdraw a life-support system which is believed to be an inappropriate extension of the dying process? The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) believes that in cases where patients are terminally ill, death appears imminent and treatment offers no medical hope for a cure, it is morally appropriate to request the withdrawal of life-support systems, allowing natural death to occur. In such cases, every effort should be made to keep the patient free of pain and suffering, with emotional and spiritual support being provided until the patient dies. The National Association of evangelicals believes that in cases where extensive brain injury has occurred and there is clear medical indication that the patient has suffered brain death (permanent unconscious state), no medical treatment can reverse the process. Removal of any extraordinary life-support system at this time is morally appropriate and allows the dying process to proceed.(National)
It’s hard for a family to go through this and the terminally ill want to save their families from as much heart break as they can.
Euthanasia is the fact of ending somebody’s life when assisting him to die peacefully without pain. In most cases, it is a process that leads to end the suffering of human beings due to disease or illness. A person other than the patient is responsible for the act of euthanasia; for example a medical provider who gives the patient the shot that must kill him. When people sign a consent form to have euthanasia, it is considered voluntary, involuntary euthanasia is when they refuse. When people are not alert and oriented they are not allowed to sign any consent including the consent to euthanasia. When euthanasia is practiced in such situation, it is a non-voluntary euthanasia. In sum, people who practice voluntary euthanasia in honoring other
family chooses to take their loved one off of life support. A PVS patient has no
The patients will have the understanding that if they cannot keep fighting the option is available. ¨ There is not more profoundly personal decision, nor one which is closer to the heart of personal liberty, than the choice which a terminally ill person makes to end his or her suffering and hasten an inevitable death¨ ( Sarah Henry, 1996, p. 10). If they are ready to end it, the option is available. They know the choice they make will affect them, but it also helps to know if they cannot go on they can tell the doctor and they will end it. ¨ Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations is the first religious group to pass in favor of Euthanasia for the terminally ill¨ ( Leading Issue Timelines, 2017, p. 8¨. The terminally ill should have the right to know if they are going to be allowed to end their lives if the fighting gets hard and to unbearable. They do not want to give up just to be on the road of a slow and possibly painful death. ¨ Between physician and patient concerning a request for assisted suicide be witnessed by two adults¨ ( Yale Kamisar, 1998, p. 6). The doctor´s are not going to just inject the patient with the killing drug. The patient has to be able to say for themselves and someone else has to be present when said, when gone over and when they are injected. The family can know their family member really wants to follow through with it and they have
The topic of euthanasia and assisted suicide is very controversial. People who support euthanasia say that it is someone 's right to end their own life in the case of a terminal illness. Those in favor of this right consider the quality of life of the people suffering and say it is their life and, therefore, it is their decision. The people against euthanasia argue that the laws are in place to protect people from corrupt doctors. Some of the people who disagree with assisted suicide come from a religious background and say that it is against God’s plan to end one 's life. In between these two extreme beliefs there are some people who support assisted suicide to a certain degree and some people who agree on certain terms and not on others.
According to a doctor in the documentary, people are coming to the ICU’s to die. (Lyman et al, 2011) Due to the fact that technology to sustain life is available the decision to end life has become much more complicated yet more people die in hospitals then anywhere else. (Lyman et al, 2011) The story of Marthe the 86 year old dementia patient stood out to me upon viewing the documentary because I recently just had my great grandmother go through the same situation. (Lyman et al, 2011) Marthe entered the ICU and was intubated for two weeks while her family members decided whether to perform a tracheotomy or take her off life support. (Lyman et al, 2011) The family was having a tough time deciding due to the fact that the doctors could sustain Marthe’s life if they requested it. Marthe ended up being taken off the ventilator and to everyone’s surprise was able to breathe but, a day later she could no longer do so and now she has been on life support for a year. (Lyman et al, 2011) Another patient that I took particular interest in was John Moloney a 53 year old multiple myeloma patient who has tried every form of treatment with no success. (Lyman et al, 2011) Despite trying everything he still wanted treatment so he could live and go home with his family but ended up in
Almost all the sources have indicated that there are little to no benefits of keeping a brain dead patient on ventilation. Taking a closer look into; brain dead criteria; organ donation; the cost of keeping a patient on life support and case studies on those who have been misdiagnosed it will be possible to draw an accurate conclusion on whether or not there are benefits of keeping a brain dead patient on life support.
Brain death occurs when brain cells, which cannot regenerate themselves, are injured or dead. This results in brain death as the brain becomes starved of oxygen. One can only be pronounced brain dead, by a neurologist and even then, a number of criteria must be met, some of these include; unresponsiveness to stimuli; no reflexes and an inability to breathe unaided by a machine(Goila and Pawar, 2009). At this point one is put on a ventilator. A ventilator is a machine which maintains the circulation of blood, oxygen and nutrients to organs around the body. To put a patient on life support is very costly to the family of the patient and even the hospital.
...t’s family should be able decide for the patient whether or not prolonging their life is moral.
My claim: I argue in favor of the right to die. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness that is: 1) causing them great pain – the pain they are suffering outweighs their will to live (clarification below) 2) wants to commit suicide, and is of sound mind such that their wanting is reasonable. In this context, “sound mind” means the ability to logically reason and not act on impulses or emotions. 3) the pain cannot be reduced to the level where they no longer want to commit suicide, then they should have the right to commit suicide. It should not be considered wrong for someone to give that person the tools needed to commit suicide.
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."