Government vs Individual effort The discussion upon rather the government should be held responsible for the decision of our lives or rather it be a personal choice is a discussion that is a debated upon in order to lower the cost of medical spending. When the government intervenes and pay’s the expenses of medical care, money is spent and is sometimes wasted due to the patient dying and only living a few hours later due to care attempting to sustain patients lives’ longer. Medicare paid 50 billions of dollars on patients last days of life, however, only 20%-30% of care had no meaningful impact (Court, Andy). Many patients of 18%-20% of patients spend their last days in intensive care unit sometimes lasting only a few days, weeks, or even a 6 month period of time. When patients are in ICU for periods of time the costs can increasingly become costly for Medicare roughly costing $10,000 a day. Government held responsible The government should be responsible for the care that patients receive in the final days of life. The reasoning why the government should be responsible is because taxpayers have paid their taxes for at least 65+ years and in return taxpayers should …show more content…
If patients are held responsible for the finances of care due to a lack of improvement, it could prevent patient’s final days of life living in misery. The reasoning for that analogy is because is patients decide to die whenever the time has come, due to being held responsible for the finances, it could prevent patient’s from being uncomfortable due to sedation to prevent pulling off tubes. Many patients, when they’re in ICU, are unaware of their surroundings and have to be sedated and sometimes are tied down to the bed, which makes the patients uncomfortable and makes the patient’s final days of life miserable rather than
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.
An issue that is widely discussed and debated concerning the United States’ economy is our health care system. The health care system in the United States is not public, meaning that the states does not offer free or affordable health care service. In Canada, France and Great Britain, for example, the government funds health care through taxes. The United States, on the other hand, opted for another direction and passed the burden of health care spending on individual consumers as well as employers and insurers. In July 2006, the issue was transparency: should the American people know the price of the health care service they use and the results doctors and hospitals achieve? The Wall Street Journal article revealed that “U.S. hospitals, most of them nonprofit, charged un-insured patients prices that vastly exceeded those they charged their insured patients. Driving their un-insured patients into bankruptcy." (p. B1) The most expensive health care system in the world is that of America. I will talk about the health insurance in U.S., the health care in other countries, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, and my solution to this problem.
Terminally ill patients deserve the right to have a dignified death. These patients should not be forced to suffer and be in agony their lasting days. The terminally ill should have this choice, because it is the only way to end their excruciating pain. These patients don’t have
All creatures on earth just want to live very long, and the human has more avid than any other creature on our planet. The patients having critical diseases want to prolong their lives, so they want to believe in doctors and modern medical system. I believe that they want to live because they still have a lot of things that they have to do, or they don’t want to make their family feel upset when they pass away. Moreover, their family have too many expectations of the medical treatments and the doctors, but the results are always negative. My close friend’s family is an example. When his grandmother’s diabetes was in the last period, she had to get some surgeries because her feet were gangrenous. After that surgeries, she told she feels very painful and just wants to die, but she does not want to make her family feel bad. Therefore, she had suffered her painful with an expectation prolonging her life on a hospital bed. Many people nearing the end of their lives have to suffer many medical treatments looking like a mortification. “Many people think of CPR as a reliable life save when, in face, the results are usually poor,” written by the author, has demonstrated for that examples. In addition, the doctors are the second factor that affects to the decision using medical treatments. All of the doctors just want to try their best to cure the patients, and they want to help the
Some laws allow patients to choose whether they want to choose death or choose to stay on life support. In the Right-to-Die prin...
There is no doubt that healthcare cost are rising out of control. No one likes the
Irony and symbolism are tools used in writing to convey individual messages throughout the story. It is Edgar Allan Poe’s intense use of symbolism and irony throughout the Cask of Amontillado that gives this short story its suspense and horror filled theme.
One of the many concerns is allowing incompetent individuals making this irreversible decision, which is why, “all have agreed that this end-of-life option should apply on to competent individual’s”(113). In addition, people opposed to this method argue that patients demanding this process are suffering from depression and not able to make decisions; yet, Rosenfled explains that practitioners most ensure that patients who consent to this medical intervention do it voluntarily, knowingly and
Who owns your life? In the case of Canadians, the choice to die is not in your hands…unless you decide to break the law. Sue Rodriguez, 42, from British Columbia, fought the Supreme Court of Canada, challenging the prohibition against Euthanasia. She lost to a vote of five to four. Sue later took her life with the help of an anonymous doctor. Ironically, Canada was founded upon the principles of rights, freedoms, and dignity. Why do our rights end when faced with Euthanasia? Does freedom from suffering not apply? How does artificially prolonging life respect human dignity? The act of Euthanasia poses many questions because there is an element of control. The following paper will examine why the control should be in the hands of the individual: Fundamentally, controlling one’s life should be an independent choice; additionally, the majority of Canadians are in favour of euthanasia; moreover, many arguments against euthanasia are invalid.
Rising medical costs are a worldwide problem, but nowhere are they higher than in the U.S. Although Americans with good health insurance coverage may get the best medical treatment in the world, the health of the average American, as measured by life expectancy and infant mortality, is below the average of other major industrial countries. Inefficiency, fraud and the expense of malpractice suits are often blamed for high U.S. costs, but the major reason is overinvestment in technology and personnel.
lives have been lost or whether futile care decisions were reached. according to hospital policies or the law. The idea behind futile care goes like this: The patient wants life. sustaining treatment; the physician does not believe in the quality of the patient's life justifies the costs to the health institution or the physical and emotional burdens of care; therefore, the doctor is entitled. to refuse further treatment (other than comfort care) as "futile" or "unfit" inappropriate.
Death persists as the great equalizer for all, and every person holds their own right to pass away when they wish. Presently in America, laws protect and grant citizens the right to order when and how they shall die when the circumstances do arise. People can assign now what is called a Do-Not-Resuscitate order (DNR) to exercise their freedom to control their own fate. The DNR order allows each individual his or her inalienable right to control their own fate. In America, all people face the choice of how and when they prefer to pass away, and physicians must respect and grant autonomy to their moribund patients while leaving their own convictions out of the circumstances with respect to the DNR order.
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.
Thus, despite the arguments against euthanasia, patients’ lives should not be deprived of well-being, comfort or dignity. “In the last stage of life, every person is entitled to a high standard of care and a stable environment in which his or her privacy is respected” (Policy Options, 2013). A lot of the time, patients with terminal illnesses are thought of as ‘better off dead’ or ‘not the person they used to be’. This is all the more the reason why euthanasia should be legalized in Canada. The government should relax current laws and allow doctors to participate in assisted suicide if need be and are willing. If people suffering with terminal illnesses want to die peacefully and not endure painful procedures or live off machines whilst also helping society out money wise, the option should be available.
“The most good is done by allowing people to carry out their own affairs with as little intrusion by government as possible” (Gittelman 372). Dying is a part of life and since it is your body you should have complete and full control over it. Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be available for patients because they have the right to choses there “final exit”(Manning 26). Patients shouldn’t have to experience the fear of being “trapped” on life support with “no control” (Manning 27). They should be permitted the opportunity to die with a sense of pride and dignity, not shame, pain and suffrage. To make anyone live longer against their will and is simply immoral. By denying patient the option of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide the government is vi...