Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical dilemma in euthanasia cases
Medical ethics tenets
Controversy of euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical dilemma in euthanasia cases
The American Medical Association (AMA) adopted its Code of Medical Ethics in 1847 during its founding meeting. The late 1840’s were a different time; a time where telegraphs were being produced and used across the divided north and south nation of what is now U.S.A. This difference in time also created a code for doctors to follow if a patient wished a suicide assisted be a physician, or a lethal injection for prison inmates on death row. The current Code of Medical Ethics, revised in June 2016, believes that doctors need to uphold their role as healers (AMA, 2016). Doctors should be able to perform lethal injections due to a possibility of other non-medically trained personnel performing the procedure and end up with the criminal undergoing …show more content…
The AMA’s belief that doctors are only healers is a belief from the 17th century. It is 2016, and times have changed along with the technology that can make death as comfortable as can be. The process of lethal injections used currently in the state of California includes the injection of three different drugs. The first step is to inject five grams of thiopental a fast acting anesthetic sodium that depresses the central nervous system that causes mild sedation, sleep or unconsciousness in this case. Second, 50 or 100 milligrams of pancuronium bromide is given to block the neuromuscular system and cause paralysis. Finally, 50 or 100 milliequivalents of potassium chloride induce cardiac arrest (Michael Angelo Morales v. Roderick Q. Hickman, 2006). This court case mostly argues that Mr. Morales (plaintiff) is against the method the state of California uses a painful process and is against the eighth amendment that includes “cruel and unusual punishment.” According to chapter 5 section 8, “The involvement of physicians in euthanasia heightens the significance of its ethical prohibition.” This goes back to doctors not being able to perform lethal injections, but Morales v. Hickman argued that the method needs to be fixed to be …show more content…
The location of the procedure was held at the Texas State Penitentiary at Huntsville, and Charles Brooks Jr. was the first one up to the lethal injection. With this being the first lethal injection procedure there were of course many doctors siding with the AMA that doctors shouldn’t preform these kinds of procedures to harm patients. During the event of Charles Brooks execution, the doctors were only able to watch the procedure and give barely enough information to the wardens to execute this man (Gawande, 2006). This procedure was then botched with the unexperienced wardens performing procedures that they aren’t capable
The discussion of physician-assisted suicide is frequently focused around the ethical implications. The confusion commonly surfaces from the simple question, what is physician-assisted suicide? Physician-assisted suicide can be defined as a circumstance in which a medical physician provides a lethal dose of medication to a patient with a fatal illness. In this case, the patient has given consent, as well as direction, to the physician to ethically aid in their death (Introduction to Physician-Assisted Suicide: At Issue,
Physicians face an ethical dilemma when confronting their patients who are suffering. Many have to choose between abiding by the law or ignoring the law and acting on their own beliefs by assisting in a patient’s suicide. Dr. Jack Kevorkian is certainly one doctor who has taken the illegal route in assisting in many of his patients suicides. In “Killer Doc,” William F. Buckley provides a brief overview of the case and informs his audience of the shocking incidents of Kevorkian’s performed euthanasia on Thomas Youk. In “Offering a Helping Hand to those Who Long to Die,” Mark Nichols compares the famous euthanasia doctors, Dr. Kevorkian and Austrailia’s Dr. Philip Nitschke.
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.
Intro: The Hippocratic Oath clearly states, “I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked [for it], nor will I suggest the way to such counsel.”Steven Miles, a professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School published an article, “The Hippocratic Oath,” expressing that doctors must uphold the standards of the Hippocratic Oath to modern relevance. Euthanasia continues as a controversial policy issue. Providing resourceful information allows us to recognize what is in the best interest for patients and doctors alike. Today, I will convince you that physician-assisted suicide should be illegal. The United States must implement a policy stopping the usage of euthanasia for the terminally ill. I will provide knowledge of
The ongoing controversy about Physician assisted suicides is an ongoing battle among physicians, patients and court systems. The question of whether or not individuals have the “right” to choose death over suffering in their final days or hours of life continues to be contested. On one side you have the physicians and the Hippocratic Oath they took to save lives; on the other you have the patients’ right to make life choices, even if that means to choose death to end suffering. The ultimate question “is it ethical for a physician to agree to assisted suicides and is it ethical for a patient to request assisted suicide?
In the medical field, there has always been the question raised, “What is ethical?” There is a growing conflict between two important principles: autonomy and death being considered a medical treatment. Physician assisted suicide is defined as help from a medical professional,
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.
Majority of US states have capital punishments (Proquest n.pag.). The 36 states that allow death penalties all offer lethal injection as a method of execution for those convicted of heinous crimes (Snell 3). Specifically, “Of the 43 executions carried out in 2012, all were by lethal injection” (Snell 3). Ending the life of a criminal is entirely legal, however, ending the life of an anguished patient is only legal in several foreign countries and “3 US states, as of March 2013” (Ho n.pag.). Criminals of crimes such as aggravated murder, killing a police office, and kidnapping all get to die painlessly and peacefully (Snell 5); yet those who have lived an innocent life who now undergo severe pain have to suffer through and die dependent on machines to live their lives for them. If a physician advises or aids a patient in ending his or her life, he could be convicted and punished with a penalty equal to that of first-degree manslaughter (Wolfe n.pag.). It seems that US priorities on the equality of end-of-life care are misguided and tyrannical. In order to ease the dying’s suffering, along with protecting their dignity and independence, Physician Assisted Suicide, (PAS) and Euthanasia should be legalized in the US as an option for the terminally ill who meet the requirements.
In the past couple of years, the debate regarding physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia has become a major ethical issue in medical practice as well as an issue that involves the law and public policy. By definition, physician-assisted suicide is when a physician provides the necessary means (equipment or medication), or informs the patient of the most efficacious use of already available means, for the purpose of assisting the patient in ending his or her life.1-2 Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing, is the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, in a relatively painless method.3 It is important to note that with PAS, the physician does not directly administer the medication to end life, instead they provide the medication and the patient performs the act themselves while in euthanasia another individual administers the medication regardless of patient consent or awareness.
The death penalty continues to be an issue of controversy and is an issue that will be debated in the United States for many years to come. According to Hugo A. Bedau, the writer of “The Death Penalty in America”, capital punishment is the lawful infliction of the death penalty. The death penalty has been used since ancient times for a variety of offenses. The Bible says that death should be done to anyone who commits murder, larceny, rapes, and burglary. It appears that public debate on the death penalty has changed over the years and is still changing, but there are still some out there who are for the death penalty and will continue to believe that it’s a good punishment. I always hear a lot of people say “an eye for an eye.” Most people feel strongly that if a criminal took the life of another, their’s should be taken away as well, and I don’t see how the death penalty could deter anyone from committing crimes if your going to do the crime then at that moment your not thinking about being on death role. I don’t think they should be put to death they should just sit in a cell for the rest of their life and think about how they destroy other families. A change in views and attitudes about the death penalty are likely attributed to results from social science research. The changes suggest a gradual movement toward the eventual abolition of capital punishment in America (Radelet and Borg, 2000).
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
It is unnerving to think that everyday some of the most unspeakable murders and killings take place just under the noses of the authorities and normal people. The killers responsible for these crimes are threats to society and deserve capital punishment. The death penalty is an acceptable and fair method of punishment because it serves justice, provides victim’s families with closure, and increases safety.
Almost all nations in the world either have the death sentence or have had it at one time. It was used in most cases to punish those who broke the laws or standards that were expected of them. Since the death penalty wastes tax money, is inhumane, and is largely unnecessary it should be abolished in every state across the United States. The use of the death penalty puts the United States in the same category as countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia which are two of the world’s worst human rights violators (Friedman 34). Lauri Friedman quotes, “Executions simply inject more violence into an already hostile American society.”
Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician acting indirectly in the death of the patient -- providing the means for death. The ethics of PAS is a continually debated topic. The range of arguments in support and opposition of PAS are vast. Justice, compassion, the moral irrelevance of the difference between killing and letting die, individual liberty are many arguments for PAS. The distinction between killing and letting die, sanctity of life, "do no harm" principle of medicine, and the potential for abuse are some of the arguments in favor of making PAS illegal. However, self-determination, and ultimately respect for autonomy are relied on heavily as principle arguments in the PAS issue.
People believe physicians should be able to aid in this process because they have valuable knowledge on how the body works, “… knowledge that can be used to kill or to cure” (Callahan 74). This argument contradicts the moral meaning of medicine. Indeed, the word "medical" comes from the Latin word “mederi,” which means "to heal." Medicine is understood to heal, cure, or comfort people, not kill. As a matter of fact, in the International Medical Code of Ethics and the American Nurses Association’s Code of Ethics fully states that the act of euthanasia violates their role and shall not be performed. Just because of the mere fact that physicians have the knowledge and medical equipment to kill does not indicate a physician should be permitted to perform euthanasia. Dan Brock states, “… permitting physicians to perform euthanasia, it is said, would be incompatible with their fundamental moral and professional commitment as healers to care for patients and to protect life” (77). Dan Brock also raises the question, if euthanasia became a common practice that was performed by physicians, would we eventually fear or lose trust in our physicians?