In the article Ethics for End of Life Care, Jos V.M Welie introduces the case of Terri Schiavo. Schiavo has a medical condition called PVS or “persistent vegetative state.” The main question imposed is whether or not treatment for her should be continued with a bleak chance of recovery. This directly leads into the next issue of the role that medical treatment and technology have in the final days of life. How do we decide what treatments should be used for which patients? Today, the majority of physicians agree that treatment must be “medically indicated” before it is commenced or continued. A majority of us would be skeptical of a treatment that is experimental and potentially dangerous. The second key point the article makes involves the Catholic medical ethics known as “ordinary vs. extraordinary.” Ordinary and extraordinary treatment must always be based on the patient’s current situation. Before the treatment is initiated, there must be scientific evidence that the treatment will benefit the patient. The treatment should be discontinued if it does not improve the patient’s health. Only the patient is allowed to make the decision. If they are not competent enough too, a legally authorized person is required to decide. If there is no hope left for the patient, letting go is a better alternative than euthanasia. Euthanasia conflicts with God’s view of the human body.
Gula explains in his work Reason Informed by Faith, that there has been a significant renewal in Roman Catholic moral theology. There has been a shift from the idea of human nature to that of the human person. The human body is seen as an image of God and therefore, is considered sacred. The human body must abide by the laws of the material world around it. Be...
... middle of paper ...
...s. Although it was questionable if he was able to even make a decision, he was rarely, if at all approached by the doctor about it.
Death is inevitable from a Christian perspective, but it is not the end. People struggle with death I believe because they are afraid of the unknown. What comes after death? Is there really an afterlife? Will I be rewarded or punished for my time on Earth? I consider that the best way to die is to be surrounded and comforted by my family and friends. The idea of a planned death just seems so unnatural. That is why I believe that euthanasia should not be legal. The hospital should perform the treatments that will actually help the patients recover. If no treatment is appropriate enough, the physician should not have to resort to assisting the patient in death. God intended death to be a natural cause, and it should remain that way.
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.
For the Christian, death is not the end of life, but a new beginning. More than something that should be feared, it is the point of transition to a fulfilling life. Second Corinthians chapter four verse seven says that for the believers, death is a release of the sufferings of this world and an earthly body, in order to be covered by life and celestial glory. Paul speaks of physical death as a dream indicating that death is rest from earthly work and
There are many ethical issues that arise in the Karen Ann Quinlan case. First, there is the ethical right that each person has to receive or refuse medical treatment. But this can ethically problematic because some would see death as an intrinsic evil; therefore choosing death would be unethical. This, however, can be categorized as part of the larger issue of patient autonomy, the patient's right to live and abide by their own personal choices (Garrett 29). Recent thought has affirmed the idea of patient autonomy in medicine, now making it a central dogma of the American medical practice. In this case, patient autonomy is threatened because the patient is not able to communicate their desires for treatment. The physician cannot ask, and therefore cannot know, if the patient would want to continue treatment or withdraw treatment. In this case, the Karen was deemed incompetent...
There is great debate in this country and worldwide over whether or not terminally ill patients who are experiencing great suffering should have the right to choose death. A deep divide amongst the American public exists on the issue. It is extremely important to reach an ethical decision on whether or not terminally ill patients have this right to choose death, since many may be needlessly suffering, if an ethical solution exists.
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.
Do terminally ill patients have the right to choose death with the assistance of others? Do religious and political leaders have the right to intervene with a patientís decision to die with the assistance of others? These two questions are some of the many about which this increasingly complex debate thrives. Society is often asked to answer each ques...
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
Euthanasia is and will always be one of the leading ethical issues present in the world. There are strong arguments present on both sides of the issue including that of one of the most influential institutions on the planet; the Catholic Church. The Church has, and always will be against the killing of a human being. This applies to euthanasia: “An action or omission which of itself and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering.” (Pope John Paul II - Evangelium Vitae). The Church also refers to euthanasia as “assisted suicide” and the “mercy killing”. “Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church – 2277).
The advancement of technology in the medical field has prolonged the lives of individuals, but certain terminal illnesses lead to inevitable death. Health care team members working in end-of-life care are being faced with the ethical dilemmas introduced by the physician-assisted suicide legalization, also known as the Death with Dignity Act, in the United States (Lachman, 2010). Physician-assisted suicide, or euthanasia in some texts, allows mentally competent, terminally ill individuals, with less than 6 months to live, a choice to self-administer physician prescribed medication, which assists in death (Friend, 2011; Harris, 2014; Lachman, 2010). Although the patient administers the fatal dose to his or her self, the ethical dilemma arises of whether physician-assisted suicide is the individual’s right, or a violation of human life (Harris, 2014). Terminally ill individuals should have the option to end their suffering during end-of-life care through physician-assisted suicide.
“If you truly believe in the value of life, you care about all of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society.” This thought-provoking quote by Joni Eareckson Tada conveys a sense of obligation held by society to take up the roles of caretakers for the ones that cannot aid their own health. In the relativity of physician-assisted suicide, the word “care” in the previous statement is defined by helping those in need, in this case, pertaining to health issues with a potentially terminal outcome. When analyzing this controversial subject, one must consider all aspects of the medical context as well as the ethical conviction that pairs with it. Should terminally ill patients have the right to a physician-assisted suicide simply to protect their civil liberties? Or is this option just a devised method opposing the purpose of doctors and physicians and the morals of civilization playing the role of a scapegoat and devaluing human life? Although on the surface, physician-assisted suicide for patients in critical condition appears to be a plausible remedy, when further inspected, a practical perspective arises saying this so-called final solution is morally and ethically wrong considering the responsibility of medics, society, and law makers.
In recent years the media has shifted more focus on the hot topic of physician assisted suicide. This expanded coverage has caused an ever widening gap on both sides of the debate because of the ethical concerns that come along with this act. Due in part to the advancements in modern medicine, assisted suicide should be viewed as a morally correct decision for individuals to make for themselves when there is no overcoming a life impairing mental or physical ailment. This form of medicine should only be used when the individuals have exhausted all possible procedures and options and the have a bleak chance on being healthy once again. The results of assisted suicide can be viewed as morally correct in regards to consequentialism, social contract theory, as well as deontological ethics. The act of assisted suicide can be viewed as selfless if one does not ultimately want to be a physical or monetary burden on other individuals. A patient can also help to save others in regards of organ donations. We as a country need to learn to observe the choices of the terminally ill patients and understand when they want to concede in their battle. If a person chooses to end their life, it should not be viewed as a sign of weakness, but rather as a statement that this individual does not want to suffer anymore.
Any discussion that pertains to the topic of euthanasia must first include a clear definition of the key terms and issues. With this in mind, it should be noted that euthanasia includes both what has been called physician-assisted "suicide" and voluntary active euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide involves providing lethal medication(s) available to the patient to be used at a time of the patient’s own choosing (Boudreau, p.2, 2014). Indifferently, voluntary active euthanasia involves the physician taking an active role in carrying out the patient’s request, and usually involves intravenous delivery of a lethal substance. Physician-assisted suicide is felt to be easier psychologically for the physician and patient than euthanasia because
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
Euthanasia is a serious political, moral and ethics issues in society. People either strictly forbid or firmly favor euthanasia. Terminally ill patients have a fatal disease from which they will never recover, many will never sleep in their own bed again. Many beg health professionals to “pull the plug” or smother them with a pillow so that they do not have to bear the pain of their disease so that they will die faster. Thomas D. Sullivan and James Rachels have very different views on the permissibility of active and passive euthanasia. Sullivan believes that it is impermissible for the doctor, or anyone else to terminate the life of a patient but, that it is permissible in some cases to cease the employment of “extraordinary means” of preserving
Regarding euthanasia, which the Church defines as acts of commission, such as actively assisting a patient to take his or her own life, or omission, such as withholding nutrition and other support to patients, that cause death in order to eliminate suffering, the Church lives by two principles. Pope Pius XII taught the use of ordinary means to sustain life and extraordinary means in some cases, a principle that the Vatican later refined with support for the withholding of medical treatment or technology if it is excessively burdensome or not beneficial to the patient. The Church also tries to distinguish between patients in persistently vegetative states and terminally ill patients, which secularists tend to group together in their advocacy for euthanasia (McHugh).