Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Medical ethics case dilemmas
Medical ethics case dilemmas
Informed consent in clinical setting cit quiz
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Medical ethics case dilemmas
The concept of autonomy in the medical practice brings many different views. Autonomy is the ability individuals have to be self-governing. In these different views there exist two schools of thought, one is the belief that people are born with the ability to do what they want their body and no organization can tell them what to do with their body, like the government. On the other hand, some people believe that it is more complicated and conditional on mental competency so that person can make rational decisions. However, the majority of people seem to advocate for autonomy. A particular largely uncontroversial discussion arises with the case of Dax Cowart, who had his right to autonomy taken from him in a tragic accident and is therefore, an advocate for autonomy. As an ethics committee, we were to discuss this case in accord with four questions: can Dax Cowart refuse treatment, is no, why. If yes, then when could he be released, and if yes to the first question what would your decision be if Cowart asked for physician assisted suicide. I will be discussing the major points, consensus, and the reasons for the consensus from the committee. In addition, I will summarize the case and state my own opinion.
Dax Cowart was the victim of an unfortunate event that took his father’s life away and nearly his own. More specifically, a propane explosion caused the accident, burning more than two-thirds of Cowart’s body. He suffered from so much pain that his request to stop receiving treatment so he could die from infection was denied. There were other factors involved for his decision to die too, one was that he felt his quality of life was going to be horrible since he was disfigured with amputated fingers, and he could not w...
... middle of paper ...
...s mind, whether that is better pain treatment or a new doctor and if that doctor fails to satisfy those requests to the point of changing the patients mind then the doctor should grant the patients wish.
Cowart suffered through something almost nobody else experiences to that point that he wanted to take his own life away because of all the pain. However, he was denied his birth-given right to self-governance. Now, he is a strong advocate for autonomy and is attempting to get his story around. As an ethics committee we were to discuss whether or not he should be allowed to die and we came to the decision that people should be allowed to do what they see fit for themselves if that person is mentally competent.
Works Cited
“Confronting Death: Who Chooses, Who Controls? A dialogue between Dax Cowart and Robert Burt,” Hastings Center Report 28:1 (1998): 14-24.
Autonomy is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical reasoning. Inside these connections, it is the limit of a sound individual to make an educated, unpressured decision. Patient autonomy can conflict with clinician autonomy and, in such a clash of values, it is not obvious which should prevail. (Lantos, Matlock & Wendler, 2011). In order to gain informed consent, a patient
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.
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?
There are many legal and ethical issues when discussing the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS). The legal issues are those regarding numerous court cases over the past few decades, the debate over how the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution comes into play, and the legalization vs. illegalization of this practice. The 14th Amendment states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). PAS in the past has been upheld as illegal due to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the constitution, but in recent years this same 14th amendment is also part of the reasoning for legalizing PAS, “nor shall any State deprive any person of…liberty” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). The ethical issues surrounding this topic include a patient’s autonomy and dignity and if PAS should be legalized everywhere. This paper is an analysis of the PAS debate and explores these different issues using a specific case that went to the supreme courts called Washington et al. v. Glucksberg et al.
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,
Imagine, if you will, that you have just found out you have a terminal medical condition. Doesn’t matter which one, it’s terminal. Over the 6 months you have to live you experience unmeasurable amounts of pain, and when your free of your pain the medication you’re under renders you in an impaired sense of consciousness. Towards the 4th month, you begin to believe all this suffering is pointless, you are to die anyways, why not with a little dignity. You begin to consider Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS). In this essay I will explain the ethical decisions and dilemmas one may face when deciding to accept the idea of Physician-Assisted Suicide. I will also provide factual information pertaining to the subject of PAS and testimony from some that advocate for legalization of PAS. PAS is not to be taken lightly. It is the decision to end one’s life with the aid of a medical physician. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary states that PAS is “Suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent.” PAS is considered, by our textbook – Doing Ethics by Lewis Vaughn, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. There are other forms of euthanasia such as non-voluntary, involuntary, and passive. This essay is focusing on PAS, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. PAS is commonly known as “Dying/Death with Dignity.” The most recent publicized case of PAS is the case of Brittany Maynard. She was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in California, where she lived. At the time California didn’t have Legislative right to allow Brittany the right to commit PAS so she was transported to Oregon where PAS is legal....
John L McIntosh. (2003) . Handbook of Death and Dying. Volume 1: The Presence of Death. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Reference.
Alan Goldman argues that medical paternalism is unjustified except in very rare cases. He states that disregarding patient autonomy, forcing patients to undergo procedures, and withholding important information regarding diagnoses and medical procedures is morally wrong. Goldman argues that it is more important to allow patients to have the ability to make autonomous decisions with their health and what treatment options if any they want to pursue. He argues that medical professionals must respect patient autonomy regardless of the results that may or may not be beneficial to a patient’s health. I will both offer an objection and support Goldman’s argument. I will
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.
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.
When it comes to the topic of euthanasia the four ethical goals of health care providers are in direct conflict with one another. An argument can be made that both permitting and preventing euthanasia violates one of those four principles which are as follows: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. Perhaps the biggest conflict is between the principles of autonomy and non-maleficence. When it comes to PAS we cannot allow our patients to act autonomously while at the same time making sure to do no harm. In addition the Hippocratic Oath serves as a large roadblock on the way to legalizing PAS. The Hippocratic Oath is an oath taken by healthcare providers at the beginning of practice outlining obligations and proper conduct of providers. The Hippocratic Oath is based on the maxim “do no harm” and more specifically it states “neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course”. American medicine traditionally succumbs to this oath and has therefore made PAS illegal. It is important to note, however, that this Oath was written thousands of years ago and it may need to be revised in the face of both e...
With the legalization of assisted suicide, a number of issues have arisen. The ethical standards of physicians seem to be in decline as they forget what exactly their role in society is. The shameless killing that is being allowed to occur will create an inevitable slippery slope, in which other crimes will be legalized. Dr. Kevorkian may have been imprisoned for his actions, but they soon may become acceptable.
Kübler-Ross also explores the idea that while death and dying have not changed, the manner in which humans cope with the constant has evolved. Medically, advancements have changed the course of treatment for both the long-term terminally ill and those experiencing medical emergencies (196). The author advocates for a calm approach to death. Similar to the plight of Woolf’s moth, Kübler-Ross describes a struggle to put off the inevitable. In this case, however, the struggle is that of medical professionals trying to prolong the life of a dying person (Kübler-Ross 199).
I was very excited to take Death and Dying as a college level course. Firstly, because I have always had a huge interest in death, but it coincides with a fear surrounding it. I love the opportunity to write this paper because I can delve into my own experiences and beliefs around death and dying and perhaps really establish a clear personal perspective and how I can relate to others in a professional setting.
One thing that we often hear is that “death is just a part of life.” So often in our day and age do we hear people utter these words. However, death is far more significant and impactful than some would allege. True death is not merely a time when we cease to exist; it is an entombment, a mindset in which we are dead to this world. Throughout our lives, it is true that we can all be dead in one way or another, but it does not have to be that way. When we have our eyes opened to what death actually is, it is far easier to grasp what the true meaning of life is, and to embrace it. Often, we will come across individuals who are enveloped in death and others who are immersed in true life. The shadow of death and entombment lies upon some, encompassing