It is morally right for a person to seek euthanasia because it is their freedom or autonomy to control their own lives. It ends the suffering of the patient without harming other people. Furthermore, it prevents the person to suffer by giving him/her lethal injection or medication that prevents a person to die slowly with pain. On the other hand, the arguments against euthanasia are not sound. A thorough assessment will protect patient who request euthanasia for the benefits of others.
The principle of beneficence which states, “one must promote good” comes into play in this case. In accordance to beneficence the patient will not benefit from the physicians responses personally. He/she will not benefit from harming her body with more surgeries. The patient will be going against the principle non-maleficence, which states that “one must cause no harm to an individual” by causing harm to herself. In this case the physician is justified in his/her actions by discontinuing medical or surgical care to the patient because it will not it her.
The nurse's position was not to continue providing care for Ralph, as she would be deceiving him by not telling him the truth. When the nurse consulted with Ralph's physician, he agreed with the family's decision, as he felt that they needed time to accept their mother's recent death and Ralph's impending death. The doctor ordered the nurse not to oppose him and not to disclose any further infomation to Ralph. THE PRINCIPLE: TRUTH-TELLING & DECEPTION (Should be "FIDELITY") In most cases, a rational person has a right to truthful information and avoidance of deception, which will allow him to decide which course of treatment to follow. A patient's right to decide includes the right to know the truth, not be brainwashed, and not be lied to or deceived by having information withheld that is relevant to his own health.
In the context of euthanasia, helping someone end their suffering may be viewed as doing more good than harm. This is said to be in line with the moral view that no patient be allowed to suffer unbearably, out of compassion and mercy (Norval and Gwyther, 2003). However, it can be argued that a further step in beneficence is the “duty to prevent harm to others” (Pellegrino and Thomasma, 1987), which falls under the principle of non-maleficence. Thus appropriate and optimal palliative care should be the right approach instead of euthanasia. Euthanasia advocates also set forth an argument based on distributive justice to support active voluntary euthanasia.
Harris, however, argues that there is no personhood paradox because the criteria is set out from capacities which make it possible for the person to value their own existence. People have different views about the right to die depending on their own ethical rationale, thus this is why it is difficult to determine when somebody has the right to die or not as everybody has conflicting views in society.... ... middle of paper ... ...o decide. They will have to consider Sadia's welfare as paramount but with consideration to the ethical issues mentioned above. It is unlikely that Sadia will develop and become better with the support provided but the judge could decide that they should maintain her life but being required to provide this support may be an endorsement of the status quo. So, in order to maintain the doctors' integrity the decision could allow the doctors to refuse treatment if doctors feel that they cannot conscientiously administer treatment because of the quality of life of the infant.
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.
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legal and the government should not be permitted to interfere with death. “The most good is done by allowing people to carry out their own affairs with as little intrusion by government as possible” (Gittelman 372). Dying is a part of life and since it is your body you should have complete and full control over it. Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be available for patients because they have the right to choses there “final exit”(Manning 26). Patients shouldn’t have to experience the fear of being “trapped” on life support with “no control” (Manning 27).
Patient abandonment is defined as the unilateral withdrawal by a physician from a patient's care without first formally transferring that care to another qualified physician who is acceptable to the patient. Abandonment is not only ethically problematic but also a defining act of unprofessional conduct (Crausman, 2004). Patients must also always have access to services in emergency circumstances. Providers must act in the best interest of the patient and their basic obligation is to do no harm and work for the public’s wellbeing. A physician shall always keep in mind the obligation of preserving human life.
Moreover, it does not abide by stewardship because the surgeon is taking advantage of being a doctor to conceal the truth. Consequently, the morally correct decision would be the option (a) because it abides by the principles of veracity and informed consent as the responsibility of disclosing the truth to the patient is fulfilled. Moreover, considering the rationality and stewardship, it will set an example for all the doctors that incomplete disclosure of information to the patient is unacceptable and the doctors should not take advantage of their importance in the
The apparent conflict between these beliefs arises from the fact that death may constitute the ultimate pain relief. Certain caveats attach to both beliefs. For example, killing in self-defense or to save others’ lives is acceptable, (1) and inflicting pain through medical interventions in order to cure or restore function is also acceptable. (2) In general, however, both beliefs dispose me, as Peirce would put it, (3) to distinct plans or habits of action: avoidance of killing and provision of pain relief. In health care, the commitment never to kill implies that euthanasia is wrong, and the commitment to alleviate pain demands actions that may hasten the dying process.