Life support is an issue that is very controversial, people on both side have strong opinions. Life support is the treatment and technique that is usually performed in a critical care, in order to support life after a failure of one or more vital organs. Life support is used temporarily until the illness or the disease is stabilized and body can function normally on its own. I strongly disagree the use of life support in brain dead patients. I against life support with brain dead patients, because of the prolonging pain and suffering. I know it is hard to see a love one’s go, but life support is not the right decision. When people talk about life support, they basically mean ventilation.
Ventilator is a machine that helps someone breathe, and also ease oxygen flow through the body. Most people on life support are usually brain death. Brain dead patients are legally considered dead. People sometimes confused brain dead with coma; however people in coma will have some neurological signs. A life support machine maintains
…show more content…
It is clear that in order for survival potential, the body must have the capacity to heal. I believe that such technology interfere with nature and immoral. Brain dead patients on life support only prolong the dying process. This possibly prolongs their suffrage too. Most family members rather have a pleasant memory during the process of death. Its involve numerous emotions, but I prefer a peaceful death. Most of us believe that all effort should be made to preserve life, but unfortunately not in the case of brain death. As humans being, the right to live is part of the basic needs, but we want to live healthy or at least be aware of our surroundings. Every humans being deserve all the best quality in life. No one wants to see their love ones through the process of dying, that’s one of the reasons we should stay strong and make it easier not only for them but for us
...the death rate and decrease the quality of care on patients. They argue that having the legal right to request an euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide will make doctors more comfortable ending a patient's life against their will without having to face any legal consequences. Although this point of view is true, I still think terminal ill patients should have the right to choose whether they want to keep living or not. This right should not be denied but modified. I think that once the patient knows he has no cure, he or she should sign a paper or make a will where it authorizes the doctor or family members to take the decision of ending his or her life in case his conditions worsens or the pain is unbearable. It would be just like the patients that have the "Do not resuscitate" request on their medical forms, but this time it would say "Do not prolong my agony."
The decision to be able to prolong life has been one of the most controversial topic for years now. Many people believe that life support isn’t benefiting the person just only making the person live longer and others believe that it’s a chance the patients can come off life support breathing on their own which there has been many cases where patients have awakened from life support. In this exploratory essay I will talk about the 3 article that embodied their opinion about life support. In the first article Berger position on the issue is that he is against Dying patients being kept on life support because he believes once the person is critically ill which some call it brain dead there’s no coming back from
There has been some ethical issues surrounding the development and use of technology, that would consist of some advancements, such as “when in vitro fertilization is applied in medical practice and leads to the production of spare embryos, the moral question is what to do with these embryos” (Shi & Singh, 2008, p. 182). As for ethical dilemmas that comes into play with “gene mapping of humans, genetic cloning, stem cell research, and others areas of growing interest to scientist” (Shi & Singh, 2008, p. 182). “Life support technology raises serious ethical issues, especially in medical decisions regarding continuation or cessation of mechanical support, particularly when a patient exists in a permanent vegetative state” (Shi & Singh, 2008, p. 182). Health care budgets are limited throughout this world, making it hard for advancements yet even harder to develop the advancements with restraints. Which brings us back to the “social, ethical, and legal constraints, public and private insurers face the problem deciding whether or not to cover novel treatments” 188. Similarly what was mentioned before the decisions about “new reproductive techniques such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection in vitro fertilization (ICSIIVF), new molecular genetics predictive tests for hereditary breast cancer, and the newer drugs such as sildenafil (Viagra) for sexual dysfunction” (Giacomini, 2005).
There are places where patients receive Euthanasia, and although the people in the vegetative state cannot see, the peace is something that you don’t need to see to feel it. Also, Euthanasia will save money to the family, as reported by The New York State Department of Health, “Under any new system of health care delivery, as at present, it will be far less costly to give a lethal injection than to care for a patient throughout the dying process." Besides, there is no reason to keep a person alive if there is not a possibility of recover it would only affect the economy. As stated by the Medical Billing Advocates of America, “as many people have seen, the final cost associated with life support can be an enormous burden once that loved one has passed away.” Contrasting the cost of Euthanasia with the cost of keeping someone alive, the results show a considerable difference of spend that if possible should be avoided. Nevertheless, there are cases where it is worthy to spend all this money, for example, if there is hope of a recovery, the family will never consider any amount of money too much for a second chance in their relative
The practice of using continuous sedation (CS) to reduce or take away the consciousness of a patient until their death follows is a similar grey area in healthcare. This was addressed in Washington v. Glucksberg when Justice O’Connor’s statements proclaimed that CS was legal and ethically acceptable. The case also suggested the availability of CS renders the legalization of PAS as unnecessary (Raus, Sterckx & Mortier, 2011). This argument leaves a great deal of life ending treatments up to individual interpretation. PAS is illegal in some states in the United States but passive euthanasia or the right to refuse medical treatment, including life-sustaining medical treatment, is well-established in the US by common law and landmark court decisions.
Almost all the sources have indicated that there are little to no benefits of keeping a brain dead patient on ventilation. Taking a closer look into; brain dead criteria; organ donation; the cost of keeping a patient on life support and case studies on those who have been misdiagnosed it will be possible to draw an accurate conclusion on whether or not there are benefits of keeping a brain dead patient on life support.
... in terms of living or dying. By this logic, people in vegetative states should also have rights analogous to that of an infant at least. Many people practice or research medicine for the altruistic reasons and derive pleasure and a purpose in life by restoring the injured and sick to proper health. If a potential treatment can be developed by doctors and researchers to restore people in vegetative states to normal cognitive levels, it would be considered wrong to allow such a person to die because, like an infant, there exists the chance for them to develop an ability to function as long as research is continued to find a way to reverse such a condition.
Brain death occurs when brain cells, which cannot regenerate themselves, are injured or dead. This results in brain death as the brain becomes starved of oxygen. One can only be pronounced brain dead, by a neurologist and even then, a number of criteria must be met, some of these include; unresponsiveness to stimuli; no reflexes and an inability to breathe unaided by a machine(Goila and Pawar, 2009). At this point one is put on a ventilator. A ventilator is a machine which maintains the circulation of blood, oxygen and nutrients to organs around the body. To put a patient on life support is very costly to the family of the patient and even the hospital.
My claim: I argue in favor of the right to die. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness that is: 1) causing them great pain – the pain they are suffering outweighs their will to live (clarification below) 2) wants to commit suicide, and is of sound mind such that their wanting is reasonable. In this context, “sound mind” means the ability to logically reason and not act on impulses or emotions. 3) the pain cannot be reduced to the level where they no longer want to commit suicide, then they should have the right to commit suicide. It should not be considered wrong for someone to give that person the tools needed to commit suicide.
Euthanasia is the fact of ending somebody’s life when assisting him to die peacefully without pain. In most cases, it is a process that leads to end the suffering of human beings due to disease or illness. A person other than the patient is responsible for the act of euthanasia; for example a medical provider who gives the patient the shot that must kill him. When people sign a consent form to have euthanasia, it is considered voluntary, involuntary euthanasia is when they refuse. When people are not alert and oriented they are not allowed to sign any consent including the consent to euthanasia. When euthanasia is practiced in such situation, it is a non-voluntary euthanasia. In sum, people who practice voluntary euthanasia in honoring other
The question of euthanasia is one that has plagued the human sense of morale for centuries. With modern medical technology it becomes even more pressing. I will cover three aspects of Euthanasia including three principles for, three principles against, and my own conclusion as to why Euthanasia is morally justified.
First, there are those who agree with assisted suicide, arguing that a person should have the choice to end one’s own life, to end one’s prolonged pain and suffering. According to Soo Borson, terminally ill diseases like dementia and Alzheimer 's kill, but very slowly and rob a person of their mind long before their body is physically ready to die. Once that happens to the patient, the path is filled with great anguish for the one’s around the patient as well. Personally, I have lived with two grandparents suffering from dementia, and one who suffered with both lung cancer and dementia. It is a sad sight to see how their minds faded and how the disease caused both grandparents to change into people I couldn’t even recognize anymore. According to Andre and Velasquez, medicine and technology have allowed people to live longer lives, but have also allowed people
There are many legal aspects that go into declaring what is and what is not brain death. In today’s society, many people, including medical professionals, judges and attorneys struggle to identify what exactly constitutes as brain death. According to, Smith“ the concept of brain death came about during the 1950’s when, as a consequence of developments in critical care, clinicians were faced for the first time with the prospect of an apparently ‘alive’ patient sustained by mechanical ventilation long after brain function had ceased”(Smith, 2011).
Life or Death? I see it fitting to start off by actually explaining what “Right to Die” is. The Right to Die is a principle based on a person’s choice to terminate their life or to endure voluntary euthanasia. The two Supreme Court cases that relate to the constitutional Right to Die are Cruzan by Cruzan V. Director, Missouri Department of Health and Washington V. Glucksberg . The first of these cases is based on the constitutional right of the state to interfere with medical decisions. Whether the state has a right to withhold the parent’s decision to remove life-sustaining support from their child. While the second case argues whether the state has a right to restrict a patient’s decision to partake in Physician Assisted Suicide.
The subject of death and dying can cause many controversies for health care providers. Not only can it cause legal issues for them, but it also brings about many ethical issues as well. Nearly every health care professional has experienced a situation dealing with death or dying. This tends to be a tough topic for many people, so health care professionals should take caution when handling these matters. Healthcare professionals not only deal with patient issues but also those of the family. Some of the controversies of death and dying many include; stages of death and dying, quality of life issues, use of medications and advanced directives.