October 27, 2015, The Baltimore Sun Opinion page highlighted a controversial, but thought provoking question: “Why are we using so many health care resources on dying patients?” (Mazzeffi, 2015, p. 1). I was immediately enticed and proceeded to read the piece by Michael Mazzeffi, professor of anesthesiology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, who knew EXACTLY how to catch readers attention. However, the question posed above cannot be answered in an educated manner without a theoretical backing. Although Michael Mazzeffi does not blatantly refer to social justice theory, his words say it all.
The Beginning: Implementation of the Affordable Care Act As an ICU physician for many years, Michael Mazzeffi has had ample opportunities
…show more content…
18). Certainly Michael Mazzeffi cannot decide this all on his own. All of the above policy critiques can be analyzed through a Rawlsian lens of distributive justice, which refers to the perceived fairness of one’s outcomes. Traditionally, distributive justice has been utilized in many field to assess how resources are being distributed to individuals. Although Rawls never explicitly mentioned health care in his Theory of Social Justice, it can be interpreted that health care is, indeed, a primary social good to which all, regardless of socioeconomic status, have an unqualified right. Nonetheless, in order to assure this opportunity is open to all and not completely burdensome, a principle designed to equalize the financial costs to illness needs to be created—as Mazzeffi suggests. This principle would recognize that the financial burdens of medical misfortunes should be shared equally by healthy and sick alike (Almgren, 2013). Mirroring what Mazzeffi mentioned about a 30-day patient review pilot program, a more direct example of a real application of distributive justice is seen within this same process of establishing guidelines for patient utilization review. Not surprisingly, many large hospital networks have not quite mastered the art of utilization reviews for many reasons not mentioned here. In spite of all that though, where is the patient voice in this conversation? In considering how to limit the use of end of life health care costs, ethical conduct which respects one’s self-determination to accept or decline treatments for themselves, can lead to a reduction in costs too. Referring back to Mazzeffi once again, assisting individuals to deal with their death fears by offering palliative care options presents a wider range of potentially cost-saving choices (which also value higher quality of life)
Terminally ill patients deserve the right to have a dignified death. These patients should not be forced to suffer and be in agony their lasting days. The terminally ill should have this choice, because it is the only way to end their excruciating pain. These patients don’t have
The family of Jahi has experienced limited resources as well as limited possibilities, however the quality of life has a strong hold on the medical decisions made by the family. According to Johnson and Rhodes (2010), quality of life (QOL) is one of the main focuses by the hospice movement (p. 64). It is known as the general well being of individuals and societies. This includes fields of international development, healthcare, and politics. The consideration of quality of life in making medical decisions regarding healthcare may involve judgments about the worth of life, and that ...
Even though Barbara’s intentions in this paper are directly stated, her claims she gives does not back her argument at all. After reading her major claim, which states that we do not have the right to die (97), I feel the complete opposite of what she thinks and I believe a person should have the right to die if there is no chance of them getting better in the future. The author’s grounds explained all of the struggles of keeping a very sick man alive, which I believe gave me some very good evidence to write my counter argument.
Terminally ill patients no longer wish to have their lives artificially prolonged by expensive, painful, or debilitating treatments and would rather die quietly. The patients do not wish to prolong their life and they may not wish to commit suicide themselves or worse, are physically incapable of doing so. People have the right to their own destiny and living in the U.S we have acquired freedom. The patients Right to Self Determination Act gives the patient the power to decide how, when and why they choose to die. In "Editorial Exchange: Death with Dignity: Reopen Assisted-Suicide Debate." The Canadian Press Sep 27 2013 ProQuest. 7 June 2015” Doctor Donald Low and his terminally ill friends plea to physician assisted suicide in an online video. He states that it is their rights as cancer patients to make the decision to pass, but he is denied. Where is the equality? Patients who are on dialysis or hooked up to respirators have the choice to end their lives by ending treatment. However, patients who are not dependent on life support cannot choose when they can pass. Many patients feel that because of their illness that life is not worth living for and that life has already been taken from them due to lack of activities they can perform. Most of the terminally ill patients are bedridden with outrageous amounts of medication and they don’t want family members having to care for them
Wilson , James G. S., “Rights”, Principles of Health Care Ethics, Second Edition, eds. R.E. Ashcroft, A. Dawson, H. Draper and J.R. McMillan. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2007. pp. 239.
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.
Some laws allow patients to choose whether they want to choose death or choose to stay on life support. In the Right-to-Die prin...
However, despite the support that this right to die movement had gained, there was opposition as states like California, Michigan, and Maine rejected it. The divided opinions of the nation then lead to the controversial question: Should terminally ill patients have the right to choose to die? However, with religion aside, the answer leans towards “yes.” Terminally ill patients should have the righ...
The medical and ethical concerns focus on the health care delivery system as it impacts end-of-life decisions. There are three categories that this can be broken into. They are the quality of life, how decisions at the end of life are made, and the physician’s changing role in end-of-life actions (Roberts, 22).
“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.
The just delivery of health care falls into a pattern of rights. Medicaid and the US political view aside, the right to health care is a basic human right whose only requirement is that someone be a human being regardless of their gender, ethnicity, or socioeconomic class. That is, the right is a non-relational right that every human needs irrespective of differences in individual goals (Lomasky, 1981). As a positive right, it is the obligation of others to provide for one’s health needs, within limits. In satisfying the right to health care, society contributes toward the fulfillment of the right for the individual. In Medicaid for example, the right is supported through taxation, among other mechanisms and delivered by a
End of life care is an important aspect to the health care field. According to the 60 minutes video, the U.S spends around 55 million dollars yearly to provide end of life services to its citizens. Many citizens may feel that the money spent is not being used in the most cost effective way. The U.S use the tax payers and Medicare money to pay for end of care services. Funds that are considered to be a waste in end of life care could be useful in other areas; such as research, finding cures, and continuing advancements in medicine. Another reason citizens may feel the money is not being used in the best way, because a lot of services do not actually save a patients like but just prolong it instead. While prolonging a patient’s life more harm
Primarily, it is important to clarify Daniels’ views on the allocation of health care. As said in Lewis Vaughn’s Bioethics
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
The care of patients at the end of their live should be as humane and respectful to help them cope with the accompanying prognosis of the end of their lives. The reality of this situation is that all too often, the care a patient receives at the end of their life is quite different and generally not performed well. The healthcare system of the United States does not perform well within the scope of providing the patient with by all means a distress and pain free palliative or hospice care plan. To often patients do not have a specific plan implemented on how they wish to have their end of life care carried out for them. End of life decisions are frequently left to the decision of family member's or physicians who may not know what the patient needs are beforehand or is not acting in the patient's best wishes. This places the unenviable task of choosing care for the patient instead of the patient having a carefully written out plan on how to carry out their final days. A strategy that can improve the rate of care that patients receive and improve the healthcare system in general would be to have the patient create a end of life care plan with their primary care physician one to two years prior to when the physician feels that the patient is near the end of their life. This would put the decision making power on the patient and it would improve the quality of care the patient receives when they are at the end of their life. By developing a specific care plan, the patient would be in control of their wishes on how they would like their care to be handled when the time of death nears. We can identify strengths and weakness with this strategy and implement changes to the strategy to improve the overall system of care with...