Physician-Assisted Suicide In today's society, a very controversial issue is physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. Many people feel that it is wrong for people, regardless of their health situation, to ask their doctor or attendant to end their life. Others feel it is their right to be able to choose how and when they die. When a doctor is asked to help a patient to their death, they have certain responsibilities that come along with it. Among these duties, they must prove valid information as to the terminal illness the patient is suffering.
There are many people in this world who feel they have a justifiable reason to end their lives but are not able to do it by themselves for physical, mental, or religious reason. However, there is a procedure called Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) where a doctor prescribes a lethal dose of a medication that kills the patient in the most humane way possible. This procedure differs from others, such as euthanasia —the act if deliberately ending a person’s life to relieve suffering —, because it is the patient who decides when to take the medication and end his life. There are many controversial debates on whether assisted suicide is right or wrong and consequently whether it should be legal. Opponents of this medical procedure, especially those with strong religious believes, maintain that regardless of one’s health condition people should never decide when to end their lives.
Often times when a patient has a health problem or concern, the health care professional will inform them of the potential diagnosis, circumstances, and treatments. However, this can become a predicament when that patient is terminally ill, for example, with cancer, and the health care professionals face the dilemma of telling the patient of their outcome. There is no easy way to go about this. Still, health professionals have the responsibility of telling patients if they are terminally ill –should they choose to know – because otherwise it can weaken the trust between the patient and their health care providers, take away from patient autonomy, and prevent proper closure for the patient that he or she may want. A patient should be told
This voluntary withholding is sometimes called the ‘therapeutic privilege.’ It may also happen that withholding information may work to disrupt the trust between patients and physicians. A physician that withholds information from a patient, even for humanitarian reasons, puts themselves at risk of malpractice suits, even if that information is necessary so that patients can make an informed decision about their medical treatment (Topic : Truth telling). Some family members may even ask physicians to withhold vital information from their patients. Concealing a diagnosis from the patient may be very difficult in the long run, especially if tests and treatments are indicated. The course of medical care itself can reveal a diagnosis ... ... middle of paper ... ... to know about their diagnosis so that the patient can decide for themselves what the course of treatment could be.
I believe that withholding treatment from a patient is wrong, because in a way that is like slowly murdering that person. If you withhold treatment from a patient they are going to go through probably more pain or sufferi... ... middle of paper ... ...so think that it is wrong to withhold treatment from a patient, and make the patient suffer even more. I also think that it is wrong to let a newborn baby wither to die, because that child should have a chance to live, and to be all it can be. In the long run I think that doctor's should do what is morally right, and let the suffering patient keep receiving treatments, until they die, but sometimes it is too much for the patient to take, and so I believe that it is the patients choice. I disagree with James Rachels essay, because I think that it is kind of like a cruel and unusual punishment to withdraw treatments from a patient.
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.
Terminally ill individuals must have a disease that is without cure and has a future laced with mental and physical degradation. This degradation could severely impact how an individual lives their life but does not necessarily mean he or she should be a candidate for euthanasia. The patient may be scared of what the future holds, but they need to have time to become accustomed to their new life. To ensure that the patient is truly dissatisfied with life, this is where the evaluation by a psychiatrist comes into play. If a patient is examined by a psychiatrist to determine their true will, we can eliminate pressures by family or societal pressures that could influence a patient to feel guilty for posing a burden on other people.
There are different point of view regarding in the influence of the news in the patient’s health. In many of our countries family members decided not to inform the patients about their illness because they consider that knowing the truth will depress the patient, that will decrease the immune system and will influence more to the acquire diseases that will affect the patient’s health. Many consider that it is better for the patient to die peacefully without know how sick they are.
Question one: Which ethical principles are being violated in this scenario according to the ANA Ethics Definitions? According to ANA, autonomy means “agreement to respect another 's right to self-determine a course of action; support of independent decision making” (Beauchamp & Childress, 2009). In this case autonomy of the first nurse was violated as he was not able to administer pain medication when he needed to. The autonomy of the second nurse was jeopardized as she was going to face serious consequences if she advocate for the patient. Also the autonomy of the second patient was jeopardized as she wanted to transfer to another hospital but was misled by false information.
Then again, when consideration is declined the doctor must guarantee the patient has the ability to comprehend his or her decision, and that the dangers, advantages, and options have been properly disclosed to the patient. Also, the choice to reject care should not be the aftereffect of wrong weight or compulsion. At the point, when confronted with a patient who declines mind, the doctor must evaluate and report the persistent choice making. It is not sufficient to just clarify the dangers of declining the care and request that the patient rehash these dangers or to sign a structure. A full limit appraisal is a complex undertaking, and it is illogical for crisis, doctors do this in an occupied ED with a patient who may be uncooperative.