Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Physician assisted suicide case study
Physician assisted suicide case study
Physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill dissertations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Physician assisted suicide case study
Personal Morality and Healthcare When one initially chooses a career path, one rarely looks at all the negatives that may be associated with that choice. Most career paths have some negatives associated with the field, but few face the moral dilemmas associated with modern healthcare. Those who choose to be in the healthcare profession today are faced with moral and ethical dilemmas that would make King Solomon tear his hair out. In many cases, doctors, and sometimes nurses, are faced with life and death decisions without the benefit of knowing the patient’s, or the patient’s family’s, wishes. However, aside from those tragic times when a patient’s wishes are unknown, healthcare professionals must always put their own morals aside, and act …show more content…
Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon, who has thrown his hat in the ring for the presidency of the United States. Dr. Carson who says he believes that parents should be able to choose how they raise their children, would force all parents to immunize their children. Dr. Carson states, "Certain communicable diseases have been largely eradicated by immunization policies in this country and we should not allow those diseases to return by foregoing safe immunization programs, for philosophical, religious or other reasons when we have the means to eradicate them."("Ben Carson On Healthcare," par. 9) Dr. Carson is demonstrating how healthcare professionals can and often do, disregard the wishes of their patients in favor of their own moral judgements. In this instance, should Dr. Carson achieve the office of President, he would opt for legislation that would impose his morality on the entire …show more content…
The so-called ‘right to life’ debate has been beaten to death with no resolution in sight…but what of the ‘right to die’ issue? In California, legislation was passed last year that allows terminally ill patients, who are not expected to live more than six months, to request physician-assisted suicide. However, as with the other four states that have adopted similar legislation, the patient must be capable of administering the lethal drug to himself or herself, medical personnel are not required to participate in any way, and the relief does not benefit any others, such as quadriplegics or those suffering from chronic debilitating diseases("State-by-State Guide to Physician-Assisted Suicide"). Therefore, healthcare professionals can choose to follow their own moral values regardless of the patient’s wishes…and they do. The option to choose not to follow a patient’s wishes, or to deny assistance, steps squarely on the personal rights and freedoms of the
For anyone who has ever worked in healthcare, or simply for someone who has watched a popular hit television show such as Grey’s Anatomy, General Hospital, House or ER know that there can be times when a doctor or health care provider is placed in extremely difficult situations. Often times, those situations are something that we watch from the sidelines and hope for the best in the patient’s interest. However, what happens when you place yourself inside the doctors, nurses, or any other of the medical provider’s shoes? What if you were placed in charge of a patient who had an ethically challenging situation? What you would you do then? That is precisely what Lisa Belkin accomplishes in her book “First Do No Harm”. Belkin takes the reader on
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.
America is a champion of the freedom of choice. Citizens have the right to choose their religion, their political affiliation, and make personal decisions about nearly every facet of their daily lives. Despite all of these opportunities, one choice society commonly ignores is that of deciding how one’s life will end. Death seems like a highly unpredictable, uncontrollable occurrence, but for the past 17 years, citizens of Oregon have had one additional option not offered to most Americans in the deciding of their end-of-life treatment. Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act (DWDA), passed in 1994, allows qualified, terminally-ill Oregon patients to end their lives through the use of a doctor-prescribed, self-administered, lethal prescription (Office of Disease Prevention and Epidemiology, n.d.). The nationally controversial act has faced injunctions, an opposing measure, and has traveled to the Supreme Court, however it still remains in effect today.
In the medical profession, doctors and nurses run into ethical dilemmas every day whether it be a mother who wants to abort her baby or a patient who has decided they want to stop cancer treatment. It is important for the nurse to know where they stand with their own moral code, but to make sure they are not being biased when educating the patient. Nurses are patient advocates, it is in the job description, so although the nurse may not agree with the patient on their decisions, the nurse to needs to advocate for the patient regardless.
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....
Throughout the course of history, advances in medical technology have prolonged the length of life and delayed death; however, terminal illnesses still exist and modern medicine is often unable to prevent death. Many people turn to a procedure known as Physician-Assisted suicide, a process by which a doctor aids in ending a terminally ill patient’s life. This procedure is painless and effective, allowing patients to control their death and alleviate unnecessary suffering. In spite of these benefits, Physician-Assisted suicide is illegal in many places both nationally and internationally. Despite the fact that Physician-Assisted suicide is opposed by many Americans and much of the world on ethical and moral grounds such as those based on religion and the morality of taking another life, it should still be legalized because it alleviates suffering of patients, allows patients to choose a dignified death, and allows patients to control their own fate instead of their disease controlling them.
I chose to go into nursing because I had taken a sports medicine class in high school I enjoyed, and I thought I would be guaranteed a job graduating that had something to do with medicine. I can remember being so excited to learn how about illnesses and medications, and all the difference procedures done in the hospital. At the time I thought a nurse’s job was to do what the physicians said, and I expected set guidelines that would tell me what I was and wasn’t allowed to do. I had no idea that I was entering onto a career path involving so much complexity, and that the skills I had dreamed of learning were such a small part of nursing in comparison to the emotional, decision making, and critical thinking skills that a nursing career requires. Ethics in nursing was not something that had ever crossed my mind when I chose to take this path, however now ethics is something that I think about every day I am practicing, whether in clinical or theory courses. Ethical theories often come from the idea that because we are human we have the obligation to care about other’s best interests (Kozier et al., 2010), however in nursing ethical practice is not just a personal choice but a professional responsibility.
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.
Miriam-Webster's online dictionary defines euthanasia as "the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy". In contrast to euthanasia, the definition of assisted suicide is "suicide committed by someone with assistance from another person". Although the distinction between the two is subtle, the end result is the same- death. When discussing physician-assisted suicide (hereafter referred to as PAS), both terms are used interchangeably. The public and medical community remain deeply divided on this issue, citing moral, ethical, or legal issues. Advocates state that the terminally ill who are deemed medically competent have a basic right of autonomy; that is, they themselves decide when and how they will die. Opponents state that it is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath to knowingly provide the terminally ill lethal doses of medications, or write prescriptions for medications that will certainly end their lives. These are questions that cannot easily be answered. This paper will discuss some of the ethical, moral and religious issues surrounding this subject, as well as some ways to resolve the controversy.
The ethical issues of physician-assisted suicide are both emotional and controversial, as it struggles with the issue of life and death. If you take a moment and imagine how you would choose to live your last day, it is almost guaranteed that it wouldn’t be a day spent lying in a hospital bed, suffering in pain, continuously being pumped with medicine, and living in a strangers’ body. Today we live in a culture that denies the terminally ill the right to maintain control over when and how to end their lives. Physicians-assisted suicide “is the voluntary termination of one's own life by the administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician” (Medical Definition of Physician-Assisted Suicide, 2017). Physician-assisted
As one can see, physician-assisted suicide has a long and complicated history. Recent developments in the United States have brought the issues associated with end-of-life decisions under the microscope. The morality and ethics associated with voluntarily assisting someone while committing suicide have struck a chord with individuals, organizations, and in the political and medicinal sectors. The Hippocratic Oath and Pharmaceutical Oath have become subject to scrutiny with the gaining popularity and legalization of terminally ill patients seeking dignity in death. Increasingly, people are supporting the tough decisions made by patients.
The right to assisted suicide is an intricate topic posed upon those in the United States and several other countries throughout the world. Assisted suicide proposes a controversy of whether or not a person has a right to solicit death through the help of a licensed physician. This issue has sparked an intense moral controversy.
In most modern mainstream religions, life is viewed as intrinsically good and worth preserving. We as doctors, come from many different faiths and religion, but we all follow one creed, one oath, the Hippocratic oath. Granted, over the years there have been many variants, but all contain the same underlying principle, that life is foundationally good. This is due to the fact that all things come from life, even death. At the same time, we as doctors must never forget that many of our patients are autonomous, and ultimately free. Physicians must rely on the patient, just as the patient often relies on the physician. The patient is the only one who knows what it is that they themselves what. In the United States, we take our freedom incredibly seriously, and we guard it as we would our most valuable possessions. We as doctors must walk a fine gray line between patient rights and our role as doctors. Nowhere is this more apparent then when dealing with patient assisted suicide, and more commonly, end of life care. Below is this committee's draft policy, which we feel our hospital should adopt.
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
It has been argued that it should be made legal for patients to have doctor-assisted suicide, or mercy-killing, which is the term used to describe ending life through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medication, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose (DHS-Internet). By approximately a two-to-one ratio, most adults in the US agree that it should be this way. “When read a brief description of the Oregon proposition, allowing physician-assisted suicide for patients who are thought to have less than six months to live, a 61% to 34% majority said that they would favor such a law in their state”(Harris # 2). However, I myself feel, that it shouldn’t be approved for several reasons: this matter does not belong upon human beings to decide; physicians and family members, rather than patients are likely to be the real decision makers; terminally ill patients are not sufficiently conscious to make end-of-life decisions.