More handpicked essays just for you.
Professionalism in the healthcare setting
Professionalism in the healthcare setting
Chapter 4 summary of health care ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
My uncle tortured, and ended up killing my grandma. Well, not in the way you expect and not in the way you’re thinking. My grandma had fallen and broken her hip, so she was taken to the hospital. Her condition, already quite bad, rapidly deteriorated and eventually she was comatose. My uncle, distraught and worried, could not accept the fact that she was dying and decided to put her on life support. For three weeks, my grandma was stuck on life support, not quite living and not quite dead. After my uncle finally allowed the removal of life support, my grandma passed away. What I’m saying is that, my uncle could have just let nature take its course with her rather than choosing life support. I can completely understand however, why he would …show more content…
Even a basic temporary life support system like the insertion of an ETT tube through the mouth to secure airways, can cause long-term suffering pain for the patients, and have various complications and risks. As described by Dr. Divatia, the complications of ETT include bleeding, disconnection, acute trauma, and possibly even tension pneumothorax, in which air enters the chest and the lung collapses, possible during, before or after the procedure. These complications cause added suffering for the patient and can possibly even decrease their lifespan. (Should this be new paragraph) Life support should not be offered as an option, because as with everything, there needs to be rules, regulations and laws around it. When medical students become doctors, they are required to take the Hippocratic Oath which states that they won’t do anything ethically immoral and will never use their knowledge to harm another. However, when patients are ready to naturally die, doctors are duty bound and law bound to save them, regardless of what they think the best choice for the patient is. In one real life situation, a boy was ready to die naturally after two days of suffering through blood transfusions and dialysis.
As a result, life-sustaining procedures such as ventilators, feeding tubes, and treatments for infectious and terminal diseases are developing. While these life-sustaining methods have positively influenced modern medicine, they also inadvertently cause terminal patients extensive pain and suffering. Previous to the development of life-sustaining procedures, many people died in the care of their own home, however, today the majority of Americans take their last breath lying in a hospital bed. As the advancement of modern medicine continues, physicians and patients are going to encounter life-altering trials and tribulations. Arguably, the most controversial debate in modern medicine is the discussion of the ethical choice for physician-assisted suicide.
...ent dies. However, if the terminally ill patient did not use PAS the end result is the same. The patient will eventually die. A patient having autonomy is one of the most important rights that we are given in this life. It should not be taken away because some believe that PAS is not justifiable suicide.
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
In A Tender Hand in the Presence of Death, Heather, the nurse, would put in IVs and feeding tubes in hopes of prolonging hospice care even when they were ineffective in order to give more time to the families who were having trouble letting go (MacFarquhar, 2016). In my personal situation, I can relate, as two of my grandparents have passed away from cancer and suffered for a long time before passing. Although it was incredibly sad and our families bargained for more time, there was some peace in knowing that the suffering had come to an end once they passed. For our own selfish reasons, we want as much time as possible with our loved ones who are suffering and close to death, but in reality, the decision for assisted suicide should only concern the individual whose life it
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
Imagine your laying in a hospital bed hooked up to various machines. The doctors and nurses are persistently coming in to check up on you while you’re trying to get through the pain, weakness and slow wasting away of your body. On top of that you are grieving the side effects from numerous drugs, constipation, restlessness, you can barely breathe. You have no appetite because you are constantly throwing up. The doctors have given you little to no chance of survival; and death is at hand, it is just a matter of when. You have said your goodbyes, you have come to terms with dying and you are ready to meet your creator. Now if you had the chance to choose how and when your life ended would you take advantage of it?
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.
I personally feel that the life of a person is well above all policies and regulations and if an attempt to rescue him or her from death at the right time remains unfulfilled, it is not the failure of a doctor or nurse, it is the failure of the entire medical and health community.
The right to choose is one of the most hotly contested ideas in America. While abortion is the topic that usually comes to mind, the right to die is a debate that is becoming more prevalent in our society every day. Dr. Kevin Fitzpatrick writes in “Euthanasia: we can live without it…,” that people should not be able to choose if they can die. He defends his ideas by showing how euthanasia is not a fully regulated practice and not always done legally. He goes on to say that most people who choose euthanasia do not have terminal illnesses and are usually just unhappy with their lives. However, Dr. Philip Nitschke disagrees in “Euthanasia: Hope you never need it, but be glad the option is there,” saying that we should have euthanasia as a viable option. Nitschke believes that people should be able to have euthanasia as an option to put in their living will in cases of
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
Euthanasia refers to the idea of a person having an assisted and painless death. Also referred to as “mercy killing”, euthanasia has recently been legalized for children - people under the age of 18 - in Belgium. The most debated point, in my opinion, should be whether or not a child has a deep enough understanding of the gravity of their decision. A child suffering from a minor illness that has a possibility of being cured may still make the on-the-spot decision to end their life there and then, without giving it a second thought. Although their parents might disagree with them, the decision will still be entirely theirs, and the child might not make a logical decision.
The topic of euthanasia and assisted suicide is very controversial. People who support euthanasia say that it is someone 's right to end their own life in the case of a terminal illness. Those in favor of this right consider the quality of life of the people suffering and say it is their life and, therefore, it is their decision. The people against euthanasia argue that the laws are in place to protect people from corrupt doctors. Some of the people who disagree with assisted suicide come from a religious background and say that it is against God’s plan to end one 's life. In between these two extreme beliefs there are some people who support assisted suicide to a certain degree and some people who agree on certain terms and not on others.
“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. It is hard to let someone that is close to us die, but we need to look beyond the fact that you will miss them. You need to think about what is best for the patient and if they are terminal; prolonging their life is not the best thing. It is important to prepare for our own death and make our wishes known.
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."