The Hippocratic Oath is taken by medical professionals to treat those who are in need to the best of one’s ability (1). Established by Hippocrates in the early 5th century B.C., the oath has been upheld through the centuries regarding Hippocrates as the father of medicine throughout the world. To medical students, it stands almost as a right of passage when graduating with ones degree and entering into the medical field. However, according to the new laws in modern medicine, the code cannot be upheld to its entirety (1). Patients legally have the right to refuse treatment, even against the educated judgment of their physicians. The patient has the right to express their religious views if the proposed treatment conflicts with their beliefs. Abortion and End-of-Life decisions have ethical and religious conflicts that have been disputed for years, even banned in many areas. There are the implications of a patient that is unfit to give judgment on treatment, such as patients that are under the influence of drugs and alcohol. The medical community is presumed to respect the views of their patients, but ethical conscience may blur the lines of what is right and wrong. Or are the physicians motivated by their own concerns of self worth?
The right to refuse treatment and express freedom of choice has been a long-standing practice. This principle has been a part of English Law for centuries (2). Life expectancy has continued to increase owing to the help of modern medicine, as shown by the drastic increase in years of life expected at birth from between 20 to 30 years of age prior to 1820, to an average of 60 years of age starting after 1820 (3). However, the quality of life is believed to be depreciated by medicine. Many f...
... middle of paper ...
...ine that is highly regarded to be simply water? One can argue this is not medical treatment at all.
It is clear that modern medicine is capable of rescuing patients from near death. Whether the patient wants to be rescued may be their own legal right but is an ethical dilemma for the medical community. We also observe the denial of proper treatment from those who are bound by the religious views of their employment. An adult with a clear state of mind should have the right to accept or deny treatment, while the physician should not have the right to deny life-saving treatment. It is clear that when a child’s life is endangered, treatment will be given even against the will of the provider. This is a field that will continue to face ethical decisions and ensuing cases against the medical community for their choice to either uphold or deny their patients choice.
The case of 17-month old Emilio Gonzales was seen and heard nation wide. A conflict between the mother and the physician emerged after the physician no longer expected there be an improvement in his health. This led to the decision of discontinuing providing care for the child and requesting the parents find another facility willing to provide such medical care. The main issue of this case revolved around whether the physician’s decision was morally permissible or legally just. Under Kantian Ethics, Children’s Hospital has moral reasoning to terminate treatment for Emilio and thus is morally justified in withdrawing treatment.
...s driven by non-maleficence, or the intent to “do no harm”. They know that withholding treatment for religious beliefs will potentially be fatal to both. While Maria is acting out of loyalty to her religious beliefs, the medical staff is acting out of loyalty to the patient’s well being and that of her unborn child. It would be unfair if no party were acting on behalf of that child. In conclusion, providers in this case must pursue every option in delivering life saving treatment for this child. This may involve legal action. If it were just Maria providers may attempt to influence her decision, but ultimately it would be up to her to refuse suggested treatment. Since her decision affects the life of the baby providers are called upon to save that child .
This case was taken into the British court system where, after a long trial, a judge upheld the doctor’s decision not to resuscitate. The reasoning was that the judge felt he could not order the doctors to perform actions that would cause increased suffering for the child. After considering the doctrines of the sanctity of life and the...
Miles, S. H. (2005). The Hippocratic oath and the ethics of medicine. Oxford: Oxford University
Intro: The Hippocratic Oath clearly states, “I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked [for it], nor will I suggest the way to such counsel.”Steven Miles, a professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School published an article, “The Hippocratic Oath,” expressing that doctors must uphold the standards of the Hippocratic Oath to modern relevance. Euthanasia continues as a controversial policy issue. Providing resourceful information allows us to recognize what is in the best interest for patients and doctors alike. Today, I will convince you that physician-assisted suicide should be illegal. The United States must implement a policy stopping the usage of euthanasia for the terminally ill. I will provide knowledge of
The ongoing controversy about Physician assisted suicides is an ongoing battle among physicians, patients and court systems. The question of whether or not individuals have the “right” to choose death over suffering in their final days or hours of life continues to be contested. On one side you have the physicians and the Hippocratic Oath they took to save lives; on the other you have the patients’ right to make life choices, even if that means to choose death to end suffering. The ultimate question “is it ethical for a physician to agree to assisted suicides and is it ethical for a patient to request assisted suicide?
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.
Aiding the death of infants is a much disputed controversy in healthcare. H. Tristram Engelhardt Jr. provides an ethical view that there is a moral duty not to treat an impaired infant when this will only prolong a painful life or would only lead to a painful death. It is these individuals, like Engelhardt, who must defend this position against groups who consider that we have the ability to prolong the lives of impaired infants, thus we are obligated to do so.
“Do Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Violate the Hippocratic Oath?” ProCon.org. Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, 2001. Web. 21 March 2014.
Abortion, defined as the intentional termination of a pregnancy, is one of the most highly debated liberties of all time. Approximately one to three million abortions are performed each year. Women receive abortions for reasons such as rape, teen pregnancy, and health concerns. Unfortunately, it is a liberty that some still wish to eradicate due to religious beliefs and misconceptions. Abortion should remain a legal option for women because illegal abortions result in far more fatalities, religion does not serve as grounds for a law, and most importantly, there is no conclusive evidence that a fetus is equal to a human being.
One notable example of an ethical dilemma presented within this report is the battle of belief referring to a situation where some patients tend to reject specific medical procedures attributed to the religious, cultural, or personal beliefs. Every patient has the right to decision based on his or her beliefs thereby meaning that patients may reject specific medical procedures based on what they believe (Guido, 2014). However, this conflicts with the position of the nurses who are mandated with providing their patients with the best quality of medical services as part of promoting positive health outcomes. The best remedy for this specific ethical dilemma would involve having to hold a discussion between the nurse and the patient where the nurse would accord the patient his or her clinical
Many of you hear today would argue the point that it is not the baby’s fault, and that it should be allowed to live life to the fullest, but in reality the baby is just an embryo it is not alive, it is not even capable of thought. But if the mother has to have the baby she will experience pain and suffering whereas the baby will feel nothing. What if a girl was raped, and she was forced to go through with the pregnancy to a man who ruined her entire life, to go through nine months of labour and have the feeling of pain everyday to have a child that should never have been born. I feel that refusing a women’s right to have an abortion is extremely sexist. A woman should have the right to remove something that is unwanted in her body, when men disagree it just shows that they have no clue what it is like to have to give birth to something that is not meant to be there.
As medical procedures and techniques have become more advanced, doctors are able to do much more to try and save a patient's life (Warriach). In some cases, however, this process is only delaying the inevitable and causing the patient even more suffering. If euthanasia were legal, patients could willingly choose to end this long process of torment, specifically in terminal cases where both would lead to the same result: death. In a hospital, a patient's life gets dragged on despite the condition by medical tools and devices such as respirators (Warriach). The only way to cease the patient’s anguish is by ending all means of life support. If euthanasia were presented as an option, it would save the patient, along with their family, from immense pain and
Consent (in the medical sense) is only morally valid if it is freely given, informed, cooperative, and represents the values of both the patient and the physician. The amount of truth-telling between physicians and patients depends on age, sex, and background of the patient (Boylan 30). This effects what information the patient is told and how it is presented, so that the patient can handle it competently and not prove to be a threat to those around them. It is vital for privacy to be maintained between physicians and patients except when it poses immediate threat to others (Boylan 31). Culture and religion influence patient and doctor perspectives on illness and death (Campbell 57). In the Christian doctrine of faith, it is against divine
Abortion is an extremely controversial issue and one that is continually on the forefront of debates. Those who oppose the idea (Pro-lifers), thinks it is an act of woman playing “God” who live from who dies. Yet, whether an unborn baby constitutes a normal person is questionable; a pregnant woman, on the other hand, has the undeniable right to choose whether she wants to have a child or not. Therefore, the decision to have an abortion is the personal choice and responsibility of the woman, because prohibiting abortion impedes freedom of choice and endangers the physical and mental health of women.