Rejection of lifesaving medical care is not legally equivalent to suicide because in those cases decided by the court none of the patients had a specific intent to cause his own death, but simply to accept the consequences of the life-threatening illness, "to let nature take its course" rather than undergo the burden of treatment. Regarding legally incompetent patients, these are patients who lack the ability to make legal choices, so that no right to refuse consent is involved. Therefore court-ordered life-saving treatment is not a subordination of patient choice. The court will usually order lifesaving or ordinary care, but treatment that is extraordinary is not required. Regarding minor children, Prof. John A. Robertson, of the Wisconsin University Law School, stated: "Under traditional principles of criminal law the omission of ordinary care by parents, physicians and nurses creates criminal liability.
Peter gives site to how the oath opposes assisted suicide. The oath explains that doctors will not give a patient any drug who asked for it, nor will he or she recommend it or take any part in ending lives but will honor the practice and do his or her best by all means necessary, which is abiding by the Hippocratic Oath. In order for one to believe in anything they will need recognition and substantial evidence that they are about to place confidence over something that has a pull on his or her life. The Oath becomes a safety jacket for patients who are lost. “You see, real people- that is patients- don’t blithely dismiss the Hippocratic Oath as if it were merely akin to a secret handshake.
Jehovah's witnesses’ faith allows them to seek medical help; however, they do not accept blood transfusions. This belief arises from a biblical passage that states "Only flesh with its soul- its blood-you must not eat (Genesis 9:3-4), "You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. I will set my face against that person who eats blood...Anyone eating it will be cut off” (Leviticus 17:10, 13-14). These passages are interpreted by Jehovah's witnesses as forbidding the transfusion of any blood products. The following presentation will address legal and ethical issues that can arise from this scenario.
When a child with your doctor about these issues doctors should not do, when the time the child is in danger, it is to tell the child 's family. Doctors suspect family problems, children at risk, the authorities may be notified. Sometimes they show that abortion is the best for her, and notify the parents may be dangerous. The right to disclose information under the background to avoid disclosure or "special relationship" obtained. "Special relations, including between doctors and patients, lawyers and clients, priest and penitent or confiders, guardians and their communities" ( "Doctor patient confidentiality").
It is clear that modern medicine is capable of rescuing patients from near death. Whether the patient wants to be rescued may be their own legal right but is an ethical dilemma for the medical community. We also observe the denial of proper treatment from those who are bound by the religious views of their employment. An adult with a clear state of mind should have the right to accept or deny treatment, while the physician should not have the right to deny life-saving treatment. It is clear that when a child’s life is endangered, treatment will be given even against the will of the provider.
That’s lets physician be certain that after diagnoses child do not have a psychological shock. Disease severity also has a significant impact should or should not physician despite family wishes about what treatment or what drugs they should get. If it is just a simple ... ... middle of paper ... ...t family wishes. The article authors Ruiping Fan and Benfu Li says, that Confucian Chines practice not to say truth to the patient if family think thinks that it should be hidden. They says, that “…is most important is not for one to know everything and make medicine decision by oneself, but to have the love and interdependence of family members.” (pg#71) .
However whatever the ethic committees says are recommendations not obligations for the institution. However there are many scenarios where these ethics board are unable to solve the tricky problem of upholding the patient or guardian right to make medical decisions as well as the physician’s right to refuse treatment. As well as the case making sure that conflicts on interest to not impede on any ability to make the proper call on a patient health. However ethic comm... ... middle of paper ... ...d Legal Framework for the Problem of Pain Mangement in Emergence Medicine, 33 JL MED AND Ethics 741,748 (2005) Bassel, Ashley. 2010.
There are many arguments revolved around whether or not physician assisted suicide should be legal. One of these arguments is that physicians should do not harm to their patients. In addition, physicians take the Hippocratic Oath. The Oath requires all new physicians to swear upon a number of healing gods that he will uphold a number of professional ethical standards. In the oath it states, “ I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel.”(Siegfried E.).
In his hospital he would never allow assisted suicide as it goes against his hospitals mission statement. He said that Baptist Hospital’s mission statement is as follows: to provide superior service based on Christian values to improve the quality of life for people and communities served. He went on to say that the Bible states that “Thou shalt not kill,” which is what he believes, so he would not allow this. He went on to say that he is aware that it is not legal in the state of Florida, so he is happy that it is probable not a situation that he will need to address in ... ... middle of paper ... ...dent to allow someone to suffer in the name of God. Even if someone sincerely wants to be euthanatized, this may well be due to depression or to a misapprehension of their true prognosis.