Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues involve euthanasia
Euthanasia and ethical dilemma
Euthanasia and ethical dilemma
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical issues involve euthanasia
Physicians’ are often faced with dilemmas that will ultimately challenge their ethical standpoints. Providing care to patients suffering from a terminal illness can ultimately result in the request to end pain and suffering. The requests often trigger very sensitive and emotional issues that need to be dealt with amongst the physician and the patient. In spite of having to consider the patient’s wish, the physician has a responsibility to the patient to thoroughly analyze the patient’s condition. This procedure can include reviewing medical history, treatments, and evaluating patient concerns. Determining the underlying reasons for the patients request is important to suggest alternative interventions. The physician is faced with the ethical …show more content…
decision of preserving life versus alleviating a patient from constant suffering. Many internal issues arise that are directly related to the patient, which may cause a physician to test his or her ethical standards concerning euthanasia.
Many elderly and terminal ill patients may argue the fact that they have a “right to die”. Many patients have the idea that they have the right to decide when to prematurely end their lives, to prevent any suffering and continuous burdens on their family. Many terminally ill patients suffer from severe depression and thus trigger a desire for death. Patients in a persistent vegetative state or chronic illness do not want to be a burden on their family members. Euthanasia can be considered as a way to upheld the ‘Right to life’ by honoring ‘Right to die’ with dignity (Math & Chaturvedi, 2012). For instance, in the Nancy Cruzan case, the young lady was in a persistent vegetative state for 4 years. Her life was maintained by artificial hydration and nutrition. The US Supreme Court decided not to allow discontinuation of the treatment since there was no clear and convincing evidence that she would want her treatment to be discontinued. However, the court stated that individual states could not ignore the expressed wishes of patient when satisfactory evidence was presented (Chao & Chan, 2001). Aside from the patient the caregiver may file for a similar request to identify alternative options to preserving the life of the patient. The caregiver tends to carry a large burden which involves financial obligations, emotional, …show more content…
time, and possible disruption of their personal life (Math et al., 2012). Along with the direct issues encountered by physicians, there are many external influences that are taken into consideration.
Many families are often faced with the decision to end future treatment due to the huge cost involved in keeping the patient alive. Healthcare rationing is an economic strain physicians are left to deal with when trying to provide quality care to patients. Many healthcare facilities are underfunded and forced to cut costs. Many patients eventually reach the cap on health insurance coverages which places them in a financial bind with the healthcare provider. Some health care programs have gone as far to reward physicians for conserving economic resources. Physicians also may feel that they must represent the interests of society in encouraging patients to choose less costly alternatives. Physicians may see themselves as instruments of "bedside" health care rationing. They may favor assisted suicide, particularly for older patients, in line with the beliefs of those like Daniel Callahan, a Director of The Hastings Center, who think that the elderly have enjoyed enough of the resources of society and should make way for the young (Suicide, Abortion, Euthanasia & Life issues,
n.d.). While considering the request of the patient, there are other underlying issues to take into consideration such as many different types of complications. The physician must make every attempt to ensure all possible known treatments were administered to relieve the patient from suffering. Based on the mental state of the patient there may be a change of heart that occurs. The depression many temporarily be uplifted causing the patient to withdraw the thoughts of ending their life. Utilizing the proper alternatives to treat any medical issues the patient may be dealing with is important, to ensure the patient does not confuse the physician’s goal to save their life. Encouraging the goal of research for the enhancement to relieve the pain and distressing sufferings so that the next patient will be able to benefit, should be a way for a physician to deal with many dilemmas with the request of euthanasia (Family Practice, 2002).
The boundaries of right to die with dignity are hard to determine. Keeping the terminal patient comfortable is the purpose of comfort care, however there could be a very thin line between what we consider terminal sedation and euthanasia. In theory, comfort care is quite different from euthanasia. Keeping the patient comfortable and letting the nature take its course is at the core of comfort measures (Gamliel, 2012). Yet, the line between keeping comfortable and facilitating death is often blurry. Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering (Gamliel, 2012). The purpose of this paper is to highlight the ethical issue of keeping comfortable vs. hastening death, and the ethical principles involved. Facilitating or hastening death is considered unethical or even illegal.
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 of 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.
Currently, in the United States, 12% of states including Vermont, Oregon, and California have legalized the Right to Die. This ongoing debate whether or not to assist in death with patients who have terminal illness has been and is still far from over. Before continuing, the definition of Right to Die is, “an individual who has been certified by a physician as having an illness or physical condition which can be reasonably be expected to result in death in 24 months or less after the date of the certification” (Terminally Ill Law & Legal Definition 1). With this definition, the Right to die ought to be available to any person that is determined terminally ill by a professional, upon this; with the request of Right to Die, euthanasia must be
There are several important ethical issues related to euthanasia. One is allowing people who are terminally ill and suffering the right to choose death. Should these people continue to suffer even though they really are ba...
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.
In the medical field, there has always been the question raised, “What is ethical?” There is a growing conflict between two important principles: autonomy and death being considered a medical treatment. Physician assisted suicide is defined as help from a medical professional,
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
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.
I am writing my paper to a group of middle class college students. Majority of who are African American, and a teacher of Asian descent. My class is made up of about twenty student’s ages ranging from 18-33. The majority are females, and only 4 males. Most of the students in my class are from inner city Baltimore, and a couple are out of state. Also, majority of my class are working-class, not many are just students. In addition, we also have students that are also parents.
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.
Anyone can be diagnosed with a terminal illness. It doesn’t matter how healthy you are, who you are, or what you do. Some terminal illnesses you can prevent by avoiding unhealthy habits, eating healthily, exercising regularly and keeping up with vaccinations. However some terminally ill people cannot be helped, their diseases cannot be cured and the only thing possible to help them, besides providing pain relieving medication, is to make them as comfortable as possible while enduring their condition. Many times the pharmaceuticals do not provide the desired pain escape, and cause patients to seek immediate relief in methods such as euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of deliberately ending a life in order to alleviate pain and suffering, but is deemed controversial because many various religions believe that their creators are the only ones that should decide when their life’s journey should reach its end. Euthanasia is performed by medical doctors or physicians and is the administration of a fatal dose of a suitable drug to the patient on his or her express request. Although the majority of American states oppose euthanasia, the practice would result in more good as opposed to harm. The patient who is receiving the euthanizing medication would be able to proactively choose their pursuit of happiness, alleviate themselves from all of the built up pain and suffering, relieve the burden they may feel they are upon their family, and die with dignity, which is the most ethical option for vegetative state and terminally ill patients. Euthanasia should remain an alternative to living a slow and painful life for those who are terminally ill, in a vegetative state or would like to end their life with dignity. In addition, t...
As a result, life-sustaining procedures such as ventilators, feeding tubes, and treatments for infectious and terminal diseases are developing. While these life-sustaining methods have positively influenced modern medicine, they also inadvertently cause terminal patients extensive pain and suffering. Previous to the development of life-sustaining procedures, many people died in the care of their own home, however, today the majority of Americans take their last breath lying in a hospital bed. As the advancement of modern medicine continues, physicians and patients are going to encounter life-altering trials and tribulations. Arguably, the most controversial debate in modern medicine is the discussion of the ethical choice for physician-assisted suicide.
Everyone, at some point in their life, will grapple with the grievous reality of a loved one dying. Doctors and medical practitioners will do all they can to comfort and help those who are terminally ill, but their efforts will only postpone the inevitable. Modern medical advances have facilitated the use of life-support machines and intubation, but these advances have also facilitated the controversial introduction of euthanasia and physician-assisted dying. A number of pro-choice advocates have recently suggested that euthanasia is the gentlest, easiest, and quickest way to end one 's life with dignity. By focusing on these appealing prospects, however, many people do not adequately take into account what I consider to be important constituents
We often ask, “What is the right thing to do?” when it comes to decision-making whether deciding for another or for one’s self. When making the decision for another we must apply our own moral and spiritual beliefs and life experiences to arrive at a decision we feel to be correct. Further more, we must try to understand his or her beliefs and consider of what the dying person may have wanted as a wish or will. The decision-making involving life and death is probably the most difficult task for any of us. Often physician required participating in decision-making regarding his/her patient. [1] In terminally ill patients case, the role of physicians is to facilitate an open discussion about the patient’s treatment plan, preferred medical care
Should a patient have the right to ask for a physician’s help to end his or her life? This question has raised great controversy for many years. The legalization of physician assisted suicide or active euthanasia is a complex issue and both sides have strong arguments. Supporters of active euthanasia often argue that active euthanasia is a good death, painless, quick, and ultimately is the patient’s choice. While it is understandable, though heart-rending, why a patient that is in severe pain and suffering that is incurable would choose euthanasia, it still does not outweigh the potential negative effects that the legalization of euthanasia may have. Active euthanasia should not be legalized because