In most modern mainstream religions, life is viewed as intrinsically good and worth preserving. We as doctors, come from many different faiths and religion, but we all follow one creed, one oath, the Hippocratic oath. Granted, over the years there have been many variants, but all contain the same underlying principle, that life is foundationally good. This is due to the fact that all things come from life, even death. At the same time, we as doctors must never forget that many of our patients are autonomous, and ultimately free. Physicians must rely on the patient, just as the patient often relies on the physician. The patient is the only one who knows what it is that they themselves what. In the United States, we take our freedom incredibly seriously, and we guard it as we would our most valuable possessions. We as doctors must walk a fine gray line between patient rights and our role as doctors. Nowhere is this more apparent then when dealing with patient assisted suicide, and more commonly, end of life care. Below is this committee's draft policy, which we feel our hospital should adopt.
In order to accurately meet our patient's needs, our hospital has adopted a few assumptions. While our hospital's views may conflict with our patients' views and values, we believe every human being has the right to life. However, a patient knows himself or herself best, and through this we respect our competent patients' wishes when concerning their end of life care. Our hospital will respect the decisions of competent patients to refuse treatment without which they will surely die. However, due to the finality of such a decision, we will require that a given patient undergo two psychological evaluations in order to confirm competence beyond any reasonable doubt. Furthermore, our policy aims to assure that decisions of this magnitude are not made in haste. To accomplish this goal, the hospital will require a minimum 48-hour waiting period for treatment to be withdrawn following competence verification. Thus, patients will have ample time to review and reflect over their decision in much the same manner that mandatory waiting period legislation for obtaining handguns seeks to limit ill-advised choices made in the heat of the moment.
The above policy will also apply to terminally ill patients who are deemed competent. Although in this case the patient will eventually die...
... middle of paper ...
...ot only physical but also mental aspects, and this is something that has only come into consideration lately. It is for this reason that we need to have policies to accurately help patients who have come to the realization that they no longer wish for us as doctors to actively try to prolong their lives.
The above is our hospital's policy concerning end life care, which we hope to adopt. First and foremost, we believe that life is foundationally good, and unless we are given specific instructions through the aforementioned procedures, we will always try to sustain life. At our hospital we will also respect the moral beliefs of our doctors. At no time will a doctor be made to perform the PAS procedure, or end the life of another. If the doctor does not feel comfortable patients requests, they will be given the opportunity to make a lateral transfer, and give the case to a doctor with no moral qualms. In conclusion, it is only the prerogative of an individual to decide what is the best life for him or herself. We will always try to respect our patients beliefs, and carry out their respective wishes, as long as they fall in accordance to our guidelines.
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.
However it can also make room for medical, legal and ethical dilemmas. Advances in medical technology enable individuals to delay the inevitable fate of death, overcome cancer, diabetes, and various traumatic injuries. Our advances in medical technologies now allow these individuals to do things on their own terms. The “terminally ill” state is described as having an incurable or irreversible condition that has a high probability of causing death within a relatively short time with or without treatment (Guest, p.3, 1998). A wide range of degenerative diseases can fall into either category, ranging from, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease and many forms of cancer. This control, however, lays assistance, whether direct or indirect, from a
Terminally ill patients deserve the right to have a dignified death. These patients should not be forced to suffer and be in agony their lasting days. The terminally ill should have this choice, because it is the only way to end their excruciating pain. These patients don’t have
There are many convincing and compelling arguments for and against Physician Assisted Suicide. There are numerous different aspects of this issue, including religious, legal and ethical issues. However, for the purpose of this paper, I will examine the ethical concerns of both sides. There are strong pro and con arguments regarding this, and I will make a case for both. It is definitely an issue that has been debated for years and will continue to be debated in years to come.
There are many legal and ethical issues when discussing the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS). The legal issues are those regarding numerous court cases over the past few decades, the debate over how the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution comes into play, and the legalization vs. illegalization of this practice. The 14th Amendment states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). PAS in the past has been upheld as illegal due to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the constitution, but in recent years this same 14th amendment is also part of the reasoning for legalizing PAS, “nor shall any State deprive any person of…liberty” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). The ethical issues surrounding this topic include a patient’s autonomy and dignity and if PAS should be legalized everywhere. This paper is an analysis of the PAS debate and explores these different issues using a specific case that went to the supreme courts called Washington et al. v. Glucksberg et al.
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
In the medical field, there has always been the question raised, “What is ethical?” There is a growing conflict between two important principles: autonomy and death being considered a medical treatment. Physician assisted suicide is defined as help from a medical professional,
...d how these determinations effect a physician’s approach to various types of critically ill patients? These types of questions come in to play when one attempts to critically analyze the differences between the types of terminally ill patients and the subtle ethical/legal nuances between withholding and withdrawing treatment. According to a review by Larry Gostin and Robert Weir about Nancy Cruzan, “…courts examine the physician’s respect for the desires of the patient and the level of care administered. A rule forbidding physicians from discontinuing a treatment that could have been withheld initially will discourage doctors from attempting certain types of care and force them prematurely to allow a patient to die. Physicians must be free to exercise their best professional judgment, especially when facing the sensitive question of whether to administer treatment.”
One of the greatest dangers facing chronic and terminally ill patients is the grey area regarding PAS. In the Netherlands, there are strict criteria for the practice of PAS. Despite such stringencies, the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (1992) found 28% of the PAS cases in the Netherlands did not meet the criteria. The evidence suggests some of the patient’s lives may have ended prematurely or involuntarily. This problem can be addressed via advance directives. These directives would be written by competent individuals explaining their decision to be aided in dying when they are no longer capable of making medical decisions. These interpretations are largely defined by ones morals, understanding of ethics, individual attitudes, religious and cultural values.
The approach of physician-assisted suicide respects an individual’s need for personal dignity. It does not force the terminally ill patient to linger hopelessly, and helplessly, often at great cost to their psyche. It drive’s people mad knowing they are going to die in a short period of time, suffering while they wait in a hospital bed.
In closing, despite all of the different opinions that people have on PAS, there are many good outcomes that come with the decision. Having the right to make a “choice” is what PAS comes down to. Many argue that it is inhumane, while many will argue that it is a choice. If choosing PAS as a last dying right, then one should respect that choice. It is a choice and only the patient should have the right to choose.
The care of patients at the end of their live should be as humane and respectful to help them cope with the accompanying prognosis of the end of their lives. The reality of this situation is that all too often, the care a patient receives at the end of their life is quite different and generally not performed well. The healthcare system of the United States does not perform well within the scope of providing the patient with by all means a distress and pain free palliative or hospice care plan. To often patients do not have a specific plan implemented on how they wish to have their end of life care carried out for them. End of life decisions are frequently left to the decision of family member's or physicians who may not know what the patient needs are beforehand or is not acting in the patient's best wishes. This places the unenviable task of choosing care for the patient instead of the patient having a carefully written out plan on how to carry out their final days. A strategy that can improve the rate of care that patients receive and improve the healthcare system in general would be to have the patient create a end of life care plan with their primary care physician one to two years prior to when the physician feels that the patient is near the end of their life. This would put the decision making power on the patient and it would improve the quality of care the patient receives when they are at the end of their life. By developing a specific care plan, the patient would be in control of their wishes on how they would like their care to be handled when the time of death nears. We can identify strengths and weakness with this strategy and implement changes to the strategy to improve the overall system of care with...
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
Should a patient have the right to ask for a physician’s help to end his or her life? This question has raised great controversy for many years. The legalization of physician assisted suicide or active euthanasia is a complex issue and both sides have strong arguments. Supporters of active euthanasia often argue that active euthanasia is a good death, painless, quick, and ultimately is the patient’s choice. While it is understandable, though heart-rending, why a patient that is in severe pain and suffering that is incurable would choose euthanasia, it still does not outweigh the potential negative effects that the legalization of euthanasia may have. Active euthanasia should not be legalized because