Thirty three pills a day, one wound vac, thirty feet of oxygen tubing, three doctor 's visits a week, one in home nurse, and one trapped grandmother. Too many things for a frail old body to take in at once and only few were really helping. The pain she went through, due to the extra treatments, was devastating to watch. She was dying and we all knew it, but doctors were just giving her more and more to keep her alive. It is a very common thing to see patients,like my grandmother, hooked to all kinds of things or taking many different unnecessary medications near the end of their life. The advancements in modern medicine have led to the an increase in overtreatment to elderly and dying patients.
People want to spend as much time with their loved
…show more content…
Mayer explains this by saying, “Modern medicine is powerful, but it is a double-edged sword. The way we can bring people back from the brink of death is truly amazing. There is nothing more satisfying professionally than having a grateful patent walk back into the ICU after surviving a near-death experience. But more often, for very old people, aggressive life support doesn 't work out so well” (Mayer). He shows that for old people, aggressive care usually doesn’t turn out they way they want.There comes a time when they have to face the inevitable and let …show more content…
That means that if the doctors feels the treatment will only help temporarily they can advise the patient against it. Dr. John Sanders provided a good answer to this question of laws regarding end of life treatment. He said, “There’s no real laws. It’s a discussion we have with the family, with the patient. Say their blood pressure is high and being treated with these four medicines. It’s such a balance because if I choose not to treat that or encourage them not to treat that and they go home and have a stroke, well didn’t I just kill their patient?” Doctors are reluctant in taking people off certain medications because of that fear of being blamed for their death. John goes on to explain, “It’s really really tough to balance the ethical part of that whole ballgame. Grandma was okay with dying and grandpa was also okay with it, but the grandson is now ticked because you killed his grandma, so you’re getting sued” (Sanders). A family doctor is sued at least once every five years. Often those cases come from some family member who feels like the doctor neglected the patient and discontinued necessary treatment. A big cause of overtreatment is fear. Doctors are afraid to discontinue certain treatments or medicines because they are afraid of the legal issues that could follow. It is easier to keep treatment going then to deal with the lawsuit that could come when the grandson is mad
According to a doctor in the documentary, people are coming to the ICU’s to die. (Lyman et al, 2011) Due to the fact that technology to sustain life is available the decision to end life has become much more complicated yet more people die in hospitals then anywhere else. (Lyman et al, 2011) The story of Marthe the 86 year old dementia patient stood out to me upon viewing the documentary because I recently just had my great grandmother go through the same situation. (Lyman et al, 2011) Marthe entered the ICU and was intubated for two weeks while her family members decided whether to perform a tracheotomy or take her off life support. (Lyman et al, 2011) The family was having a tough time deciding due to the fact that the doctors could sustain Marthe’s life if they requested it. Marthe ended up being taken off the ventilator and to everyone’s surprise was able to breathe but, a day later she could no longer do so and now she has been on life support for a year. (Lyman et al, 2011) Another patient that I took particular interest in was John Moloney a 53 year old multiple myeloma patient who has tried every form of treatment with no success. (Lyman et al, 2011) Despite trying everything he still wanted treatment so he could live and go home with his family but ended up in
Ken Berger believes that Life Support for elderly patient isn’t benefiting them and is actually causing more harm to them. According to the “Dying on life support: is it fair? Article The Author Dr. Berger states in most cases when the end is near should doctors prolong life artificially? Dr. Berger the medical doctor at the Bellevue Hospital in New York City states how patients that are on life support in the intensive care unit are not showing signs of likelihood of surviving. A very well-known patients of Dr. Berger who is severely ill and he isn’t showing any signs of getting better but actually is showing signs of his body getting ill (Leung n.p). By law Dr. Berger must keep him alive which, he isn’t very pleased about it because he finds it very useful for the staff and also for the
Increasingly, people know from their own experience some painful dilemmas involving elderly or handicapped individuals who are in pain. While the achievements of modern medicine have been used to prolong and enhance life for many, they have also helped create an often dreaded context for dying. Costly technology may keep persons alive, but frequently these persons are cut off from meaningful relationships with others and exist with little or no hope for recovery. Many fearfully imagine a situation at the end of their lives where they or their trusted ones will have no say in decisions about their treatment.
While physicians are supposed to prolong life, both sides can agree that they are also there to ease suffering. Physicians “are not limited to healing,” as people from Geneva University Medical School noted (Martin, Mauron, and Hust 55).Utilizing PAS would allow physicians to ease the person’s suffering. Despite prolonging life, again opponents argue that there are other alternatives to PAS, for example, continuous deep sedation, a form of palliative care. It is a substitute, but stated in an essay, “PAS may be morally more acceptable than CDS” (Martin, Mauron, and Hust56). Regarding that, both sides can agree PAS is the last resort for many. Evidently others feel that due to the costs, “The incentive to save money by denying treatment poses a significant danger” (Golden 829). Money would influence a patient’s judgment, but if they qualify, it would help them more than jeopardize their situation. PAS would help the patients not leave their family in credit card debt. PAS would be the appropriate choice for the
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.
...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.”
Almost everybody on Long Island, and probably all around the world, has been prescribed a drug by a doctor before— whether it was to knock out a nasty virus, or relieve pain post injury or surgery. However, what many people don’t realize is that these drugs can have highly addictive qualities, and more and more people are becoming hooked, specifically teenagers. But when does harmlessly taking a prescription drug to alleviate pain take the turn into the downward spiral of abuse? The answer to that question would be when the user begins taking the drug for the “high” or good feelings brought along with it—certainly not what it was prescribed for (1). The amount of teens that abuse prescription medications has been rapidly increasing in recent
The healthcare reform debate has been politicized in the United States for many years where there have been deliberate efforts by various stakeholders to ensure that they push for the reforms that are in line with the cost-benefit aspects that they have already envisioned. In this paper, I will attempt to prove that the reforms that have been witnessed in the healthcare in the recent years have not been effective and helpful to the society as a whole. When President Obama came into office, he promised to oversee great reforms in the healthcare which is his government he face much priority in the social policy aspects. The congress managed to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
Critics to the idea of providing dying patients with lethal doses, fear that people will use this type those and kill others, “lack of supervision over the use of lethal drugs…risk that the drugs might be used for some other purpose”(Young 45). Young explains that another debate that has been going on within this issue is the distinction between killings patients and allowing them die. What people don’t understand is that it is not considered killing a patient if it’s the option they wished for. “If a dying patient requests help with dying because… he is … in intolerable burden, he should be benefited by a physician assisting him to die”(Young 119). Patients who are suffering from diseases that have no cure should be given the option to decide the timing and manner of their own death. Young explains that patients who are unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure, or with incurable medical conditions are individuals who should have access to either euthanasia or assisted suicide. Advocates agreeing to this method do understand that choosing death is a very serious matter, which is why it should not be settled in a moment. Therefore, if a patient and physician agree that a life must end and it has been discussed, and agreed, young concludes, “ if a patient asks his physician to end his life, that constitutes a request for
Doctors prefer to never have to euthanize a patient. It is a contradiction of everything they have been taught for a doctor to euthanize someone, because a doctor’s job is to do everything in their power to keep the patient alive, not assist them in suicide. The majority of doctors who specialize in palliative care, a field focused on quality of life for patients with severe and terminal illnesses, think legalizing assisted suicide is very unnecessary. This is due to the fact that if patients do not kill themselves, they will end up dying on a ventilator in the hospital under the best possible care available, with people around them trying to keep them as comfortable as possible. Legalized euthanasia everywhere has been compared to going down a slippery slope. Officials believe that it could be done over excessively and the fear of assisted suicide numbers rising greatly is a great fear. This is why euthanasia is such a controversial subject worldwide. But, even though it is a very controversial subject, euthanasia is humane. Every doctor also has a say in whether or not they choose to euthanize a patient or not, leaving only the doctors who are willing to do this type of practice, for euthanizing patients. Medicine and drugs prescribed by a doctor for pain or suffering can not always help a person to the extent they desire, even with the help of doctors
In today’s society we all try to prolong life as long as possible. Technology is finding new ways that we can stay healthier and lead productive lives longer. Governor Lamm said “we should be careful in terms of our technological miracles that we don’t impose life on people who, in fact, are suffering beyond our ability to help”(Collins,1991,p.540). That is the real issue at hand; are we in fact over stepping our boundaries by keeping people alive who are maybe beyond our help. “Machines can extend the length but not always the quality of life” (Cloud,2000,p.62). As doctors, they need to think about the well being of the patient and if any methods could really help the situation.
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.
Universal health care is medical insurance provided to all the residents of a country by their government. Out of all the major industrial countries, The United States is the only country without a universal health care system. In 2010, President Barack Obama signed a health care reform law making it illegal to be uninsured in America, which is a major step towards it. Universal Health Care should be mandatory in America because it gives everyone an opportunity to receive more equal care, the overall health of the population would increase and current insurance plans are unaffordable for many Americans.
Imagine visiting your 85-year-old mother in the hospital after she has a debilitating stroke. You find out that, in order to survive, she requires a feeding tube and antibiotics to fight an infection. She once told you that no matter what happened, she wants to live. But the doctor refuses further life-sustaining treatment. When you ask why, you are told, in effect, "The time has come for your mother to die. All we will provide is comfort care."
We as health care professionals need to work side by side with the families to provide the best care and decisions that are right by our patients. We have to be mindful of the cause and effect our course of treatment depicts for our patients. No individual wants to live in pain or misery, we all want to be healthy and happy and are willing to go great lengths to achieve this goal. Death is the final stage of life, but as we live and get older we start to prepare for death as to not fear death but accept it. Health care professionals may benefit from the opportunity to acknowledge, normalize and integrate death and dying into the continuum of life, both for themselves as well as their patients. (Sinclair, 2011) With advancements in technology and medicine we are living longer and fuller lives, and given time quality of life will only continue to improve.