However, after a few weeks the doctors decided to do a final medical exam on her body to decide whether she is going to lose her kidney and two legs. At the end, results showed that the cancer is reducing from her body and she was not going to lose her kidney and two legs. If she would have taken the doctor-assisted option she would make a big mistake. The moral content of the argument can persuade the reader to agree with me because the doctor-assisted suicide can have a significant impact on the... ... middle of paper ... ...ed someone else there to hold them and tell about the profoundness of the situation. Medical doctors need to identify the issue as fast as possible to give other options to the patient and also avoiding the suicide part at any cost.
They just want to die instead of suffering those medical treatments. In that time, the patients’ family just believes in the doctors and tells them to do whatever they can, but the doctors just do something that 's possible. Almost patients have died after that expensive medical treatments, but the doctors still do those medical procedures. That doctors did not have enough confidence to tell the truth to the patients’ families. Other doctors have more confidence, so they explain the health condition to the patients’ families.
Based on them, we can definitely eliminate options (c) and (d). Option (c) is against the principle of veracity and informed consent because the doctor was lying and hiding the information about the patient’s health that the patient was supposed to know. Option (d) is morally incorrect because the patient is lied to and the surgeon is not penalized. Option (b) does abide by the principle of veracity, but is against rationality because it sets negative example for the community that the doctors can be forgiven for their mistakes. Moreover, it does not abide by stewardship because the surgeon is taking advantage of being a doctor to conceal the truth.
Because, of Charlotte’s parents’ desires unfortunately caused Charlotte to die a painful death without her parents. If the patient is unable to speak for their selves, the family should be able to have some say in the medical treatment, however; if the doctors have tried everything they could do, the hospital should have final decisions whether or not the patient dies or treatment
Doctors are supposed to be looking after the interests of their patients, and they sometimes see lying as the only way to skirt the policies of some HMO's. The author takes the position that it is morally and ethically wrong for doctors to lie to insurance companies. However, in the current health system, dishonest pays.
I feel that they had her best interests in mind when they made the decision to not have her resuscitated if anything were to happen. Jessica might be a competent human being, but her rationality is in question since she was only seven years old. Nevertheless, since euthanasia was illegal, Jessica’s parents had to spend the last 72 hours of their daughter’s life watching her writhe in pain... ... middle of paper ... ...f them because the last moments you spent with them were so traumatic. Jessica’s parents wanted to have their daughter die free of pain so they would be able to focus solely on the good memories. They were not able to do so because of the laws in place, which is why the law should be changed to permit euthanasia in cases such as this.
Her life turned into a saga of hospital stays where she underwent several surgeries to stop the growth of the tumor. They were unsuccessful and her doctors gave her a prognosis of six months to live. The doctors gave her the option of having full brain radiation. It wouldn’t necessarily save her life, but it would possibly extend the time. However, the quality of her life would be greatly diminished and she would have to suffer from the side effects including loss of hair and a burnt scalp.
Jeanette had a fear of losing her job, not being able to care for her loved ones, paying hospital bills, and suffering. It was her choice to die and was prepared to reject chemotherapy and radiation, but thankfully, Jeanette’s doctor, Dr. Kenneth Stevens, encouraged her to fight. Jeanette claims, “If he [Dr. Stevens] believed in physician-assisted suicide, I would not be here 13 years later to thank him, I would be dead” (Hall 1). Today, Jeanette is alive, happy, and healthy and speaks out against legalization, but because of the current legalization of physician-assisted suicide, she barely survived. Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are similar in the fact that they end lives of terminally ill patients, but they vary on where they are legalized.
One is which rule will he be following or breaking if he carried on with certain action. In this case, the doctors were breaking medical rules concerning patients. The other question would be if the rule was followed would it result in happiness. The doctors following the rule of injecting the patients without their consent would not be a pleasing thing. This will help determine that it is a wrongful action.
Her chance at motherhood might be forever lost. It is understandable when irresponsibility is not the factor that led to the decision to abort a fetus. In most cases, patients that are slowly dying day after day, should be the ones with the legal option to be able to end their lives peacefully. Life has already made it so tough on these individuals with their disease. Euthanasia in truth does help people in need.