According to Jackers (2007), Rachels divides euthanasia into active euthanasia and passive euthanasia (p.77). “The 116th episode of the television series Star Trek: The Next Generation” mainly talks about Worf became a paraplegic due to an accident. In Worf’s opinion, it is time to put an end to his life because he was not able to accept this fact as an honorable warrior. It’s a kind of active euthanasia. About this episode, there are three types of ethical rules to be considered. One is to maximize happiness of patients from the perspective of utilitarianism, one is don’t do harm to patients from the perspective of deontology, one is to respect patients’ wishes from the perspective of deontology. First of all, according to Mill’s utilitarianism (1906), human should follow the principle that to pursue the greatest happiness. If a behavior helps promote happiness, this behavior is correct; if a behavior leads to the opposite of happiness, this behavior is wrong. In the episode, Dr. Russel suggests Worf to conduct an untested surgery that may allow Worf to totally recover …show more content…
In the episode, there are two types of deontology. One is don’t do harm to patients presented by Dr. Crusher, one is to respect patients’ wishes presented by Commander Riker. Which type of deontology doctors should follow when they make decisions about treatment? From my point of view, it depends on the mental condition of patients. If patients are not sensible and mature enough to response for their decision, such as irreversible coma, severe senile dementia, children without mature concept of death, doctors should follow the former type of deontology—don’t do harm to patients; if patients are sensible and mature enough to response for their decision, doctors should follow the latter type of deontology—to respect patients’
The one example of this that I found most relevant in the book is the situation of Armando. Armando was shot and the bullet lodged in the spinal canal. It caused enough damage to make him a paraplegic, but not enough to kill him. The ethics committee had decided that it was best to encompass a DNR because he had no health insurance, and his quality of life was not what it was before. When the doctors went to approve this with Armando, he denied the DNR and said that he wanted what ever was necessary to be done to him to save his life (Belkin p. 58-59). This made Cindy worried for the cost of keeping him alive was substantial. All the doctors and caretakers believed that he should be placed under DNR, however that was not what Armando wanted. The doctors believed that was the wrong decision. This correlates to what the quote was from the book on page 70; doctors can tend to be narrow-minded when it comes to the care of a patient. They believe that their course of action is the best and do not agree if the patient wants something different. This I have found is also true in my own personal experience with doctors. For example, when I was about 17 my wisdom teeth were growing in. I was in terrible pan from two of my wisdom teeth being impacted. My
Another reason a patient may opt to euthanasia is to die with dignity. The patient, fully aware of the state he or she is in, should be able choose to die in all their senses as opposed to through natural course. A patient with an enlarged brain tumor can choose to die respectively, instead of attempting a risky surgery that could leave the patient in a worse condition then before the operation, possibly brain-dead. Or a patient with early signs of Dementia or Alzheimer’s disease may wish to be granted euthanization before their disease progresses and causes detrimental loss of sentimental memories. Ultimately it should be the patient’s choice to undergo a risky surgery or bite the bullet, and laws prohibiting euthanasia should not limit the patient’s options.
The word Euthanasia comes from the Greek and means “good death” (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/hp.asp) and in the range of this paper, it is called physician assisted suicide or “active” euthanasia. The definition of “active” euthanasia is ending one’s life yourself or with the aid of a doctor. It can be done in various different ways; however, the most common form is with a combination of drugs, usually given by a physician. ( http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/hp.asp) The reason Physician Assisted Suicide (or PAS) is an important issue in this country and around the world is that there are many people out there suffering from debilitating, incurable and intensely painful diseases that would like to end their lives with dignity and without suffering.
killing and letting die. Some argue that letting die, which is the action considered to take
Patients are ultimately responsible for their own health and wellbeing and should be held responsible for the consequences of their decisions and actions. All people have the right to refuse treatment even where refusal may result in harm to themselves or in their own death and providers are legally bound to respect their decision. If patients cannot decide for themselves, but have previously decided to refuse treatment while still competent, their decision is legally binding. Where a patient's views are not known, the doctor has a responsibility to make a decision, but should consult other healthcare professionals and people close to the patient.
A person that is suffering with the question to end his or her life, must have a deontological approach when making the final decision. A patient that is considering physician assisted suicide has considered the moral and obligational duties that come with the procedure. The person receiving care must think of his or her caretaker because ultimately they are the ones that endures the burden everyday of care. In the documentary, “The Suicide Tourist”, the husband spoke about the burden of feeling like he was punishing his wife for his disease. According to the deontological theory, the man felt as if it was morally wrong to continue living and feeling the way he did (Zaristky,
...d how these determinations effect a physician’s approach to various types of critically ill patients? These types of questions come in to play when one attempts to critically analyze the differences between the types of terminally ill patients and the subtle ethical/legal nuances between withholding and withdrawing treatment. According to a review by Larry Gostin and Robert Weir about Nancy Cruzan, “…courts examine the physician’s respect for the desires of the patient and the level of care administered. A rule forbidding physicians from discontinuing a treatment that could have been withheld initially will discourage doctors from attempting certain types of care and force them prematurely to allow a patient to die. Physicians must be free to exercise their best professional judgment, especially when facing the sensitive question of whether to administer treatment.”
In conclusion, Euthanasia is “good death” and should result in that. Having a patient like Diane’s death should end in a non suffering way. Without having any pressure or being mislead and being pushed to dying and going completely against they’re autonomy. After you go against they’re autonomy that’s when other issues and conflicts are presented. They’re the voice of their own body and if one wishes, in good reasons and rational ones should be entitled to make a huge decision for their life.
The famous dystopian novel, Brave New World by well recognized author Aldous Huxley is a very accurate description of society today. This novel was banned in many Countries, including Ireland and Australia in 1932 for good reason. This novel has many debatable motifs, one of the most underlying motifs is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma, or euthanasia. In this dystopian novel, Aldous Huxley creates a world called the World State.In the World State, people use Euthanasia for anyone who is no longer useful to the society. At 60 years old, people are no longer of use to society. In Brave New World, everyone undergoes “mental euthanasia,” because they are constantly fed
In “The Morality of Euthanasia” by James Rachels, he believed that if the American Medical Association (AMA) accepts passive euthanasia, then active euthanasia should be permitted as well since passive euthanasia tends to cause more pain and suffering to the patient more than active euthanasia does, and both end with death. In “The Intentional Termination of Life” by Bonnie Steinbock, she does not argue against euthanasia, but instead, she focuses on the intention of doctors in the act of euthanasia. She believes that in certain cases of passive euthanasia, there could be other reasons to the act of removing or withholding treatment other than
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
Rachels’ first premise is, “passive euthanasia (i.e., withholding treatment) is permissible in part because it ends a patient’s suffering”. He then supports this premise by providing a quote from the American Medical Association. This quote essentially states that the intentional killing of one human being by another (in this case, active euthanasia) goes against the AMA and is therefore wrong. The cessation of necessary treatment to prolong the life of the body by the patient or the immediate family (passive euthanasia) when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent, however, is permissible. His second premise is that “active euthanasia is a more efficient and humane means to ending the patient’s suffering than passive euthanasia.” To defend this claim, Rachel gives the case of a patient with incurable throat cancer. This patient is sure to die in a matter of days even if treatment is continued. The patient does not wish to live on in agony and asks the doctor to cease treatment. The doctor ag...
The ethical debate regarding euthanasia dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. It was the Hippocratic School (c. 400B.C.) that eliminated the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate for a doctor? More so, euthanasia raises the argument of the different ideas that people have about the value of the human experience.
The world is full of people, some of which are suffering every day from pain. Even with the advancements that have been made with medicine, it’s not enough to cure many diseases or to heal a person’s pain. Euthanasia is commonly referred to as a “mercy killing”. It is the intentional act of putting a person to death quietly and painlessly who has an incurable or painful disease, it is intended to be an act of mercy. According to (ANA, 2013), Euthanasia is the act of putting to death someone suffering from a painful and prolonged illness or injury.