In the health care field, social workers are faced with one of the most difficult and conflict social problem. Patients who are chronically ill have on occasion if they can end their life at their decision. As a social work, you must follow your code of ethics and the law by denying their right to the end-of-life decision. This is called euthanasia, a practice used to end the life of a seriously ill male or female. There is a conflicting issue on the interplay of person and professional views social workers given to patients who are experiencing or experienced end-of-life decisions. There are multiple conflicts with the use of euthanasia and assisted suicide, one major factor is the lack of training needed to successfully handle the situation. Another factor is that the constitutional laws conflict with the actions of agreeing to end someone’s life. For instance, Dr. Jack Kevorkian performed the act of euthanasia on a chronically ill man and publicly videotaped the procedure. He was at the time in the state of Michigan, a state that bans euthanasia and assisted suicide. He was charged with murder and sent to jail for his …show more content…
The psychodynamic theory created by Carl Jung suggest that profession a suggestive on the idea of what is right and wrong. Personal values and beliefs is strongly followed in the view of social workers in the ethical guidelines. This theory is structured on the unconscious and conscious mind set on people. Another theory is the cognitive theory, which relies on the mind’s decision to process. Social workers in the medical profession must negate their belief systems and actions when dealing with a client who want to end their lives. The reason for the end-of life situation can be other than their illness and age. A social worker must take into account the feedback of the patients and determine what they are willing to do inorder make the
Physicians face an ethical dilemma when confronting their patients who are suffering. Many have to choose between abiding by the law or ignoring the law and acting on their own beliefs by assisting in a patient’s suicide. Dr. Jack Kevorkian is certainly one doctor who has taken the illegal route in assisting in many of his patients suicides. In “Killer Doc,” William F. Buckley provides a brief overview of the case and informs his audience of the shocking incidents of Kevorkian’s performed euthanasia on Thomas Youk. In “Offering a Helping Hand to those Who Long to Die,” Mark Nichols compares the famous euthanasia doctors, Dr. Kevorkian and Austrailia’s Dr. Philip Nitschke.
Imagine, if you will, that you have just found out you have a terminal medical condition. Doesn’t matter which one, it’s terminal. Over the 6 months you have to live you experience unmeasurable amounts of pain, and when your free of your pain the medication you’re under renders you in an impaired sense of consciousness. Towards the 4th month, you begin to believe all this suffering is pointless, you are to die anyways, why not with a little dignity. You begin to consider Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS). In this essay I will explain the ethical decisions and dilemmas one may face when deciding to accept the idea of Physician-Assisted Suicide. I will also provide factual information pertaining to the subject of PAS and testimony from some that advocate for legalization of PAS. PAS is not to be taken lightly. It is the decision to end one’s life with the aid of a medical physician. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary states that PAS is “Suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent.” PAS is considered, by our textbook – Doing Ethics by Lewis Vaughn, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. There are other forms of euthanasia such as non-voluntary, involuntary, and passive. This essay is focusing on PAS, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. PAS is commonly known as “Dying/Death with Dignity.” The most recent publicized case of PAS is the case of Brittany Maynard. She was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in California, where she lived. At the time California didn’t have Legislative right to allow Brittany the right to commit PAS so she was transported to Oregon where PAS is legal....
When patients suffering from serious health conditions are towards the end of their lives, they are given an option that can change their lives and the lives of those around them. This option is praised as an act of preserving dignity, but also condemned as an act of weakness. The terminally ill, as well as the disabled and the elderly, are given the choice to end their lives by the method of suicide involving the assistance of a physician. For several years, this method has been under debate on whether this option is ethical or unethical. Not only is this defective option unethical, but it puts ill and elderly patients under pressures that can lead to them choosing this alternative rather than the fighting for their lives.
Some ethical issues associated in the end of life decision is that the social worker may be catoring to their own needs instead of the clients. Social workers, in general, works on enhancing ones’ life, which might seem counterintuitive to ending it, creating an ethical dilemma (Shulman, 2012, p. 253).
The issue of physician assisted suicide has been around for quite a while. There has been many court cases on it to make it legalized but all of it has been struck down by the Supreme Court. What seem to be a lost cause in the past is now becoming a real possibility as America moves further into the twenty-first century. As citizens increase their support for PAS, many states are beginning to draft bills to legalize this cause, with tough restriction and regulation of course. In 1997, Oregon became the first state to legalized physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Soon after, three other states (Washington, Vermont, and Montana) follow Oregon’s footstep while two other states are inching closer to making this procedure legal. Even so, there are still many people against PAS and are constantly fighting this from becoming legal. With the rise of popularity on this issue, the debate on whether one has the right to end their life, and the morality of this issue are reason why the UTA community should care about this topic and why it is worth exploring the three position concerning PAS. In this paper, I will discuss the three main position on this debate: that physician assisted suicide should be illegal, that physician assisted suicide should be limited to terminally ill patient, and that physician assisted suicide should be available for everyone.
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.
In today's society, one of the most controversial health-care-related ethical issues is assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. Assisted suicide is not to be confused with ethically justified end-of-life decisions and actions. Nurses have a responsibility to deliver comprehensive and benevol...
Arguments in support for physician-assisted suicide are that it allows people who are terminally ill to be relieved of their pain and suffering. It also allows a terminally ill person to die in dignity. Furthermore, choosing when to die is personal freedom. On the other hand, death is the natural part of human nature and nobody has the right to decide when to die or live not even the doctor. Physician-assisted suicide may lead to abuse by relatives or friends who have ulterior motives other than the wish of the person to get well. Legalization of euthanasia might lead to assaults on individual autonomy, which means it will be abused by people; that is people might be placed in terrible conditions intentionally by their friends, relatives or families and then suggest to the doctor that their lives be terminated since the individual cannot function as a human being. It might end up being a substitute for rational therapeutic, psychological, and social interventions, which could have otherwise enhanced the quality of life for patients who are dying. There is now even evidence that the legalization of assisted suicide in the Northern Territory in Australia has undermined the people's trust in the medical care system (Levine 2012).
Today's society is now introduced to one of the most controversial issues; assisted suicide. Just like in other controversial arguments, there are many people that feel that it is wrong for people to ask their healthcare provider to end one's life; while others feel that if the person is terminally ill and has given their will to die, that they can be assisted in suicide. Though both sides are reasonable many people believe that people should not take part in helping someone take their own life, assisted suicide should be legal because, it plays a factor of conquering one’s feelings, gives an option to those whom are terminally ill or in immense pain, and every human
“If you truly believe in the value of life, you care about all of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society.” This thought-provoking quote by Joni Eareckson Tada conveys a sense of obligation held by society to take up the roles of caretakers for the ones that cannot aid their own health. In the relativity of physician-assisted suicide, the word “care” in the previous statement is defined by helping those in need, in this case, pertaining to health issues with a potentially terminal outcome. When analyzing this controversial subject, one must consider all aspects of the medical context as well as the ethical conviction that pairs with it. Should terminally ill patients have the right to a physician-assisted suicide simply to protect their civil liberties? Or is this option just a devised method opposing the purpose of doctors and physicians and the morals of civilization playing the role of a scapegoat and devaluing human life? Although on the surface, physician-assisted suicide for patients in critical condition appears to be a plausible remedy, when further inspected, a practical perspective arises saying this so-called final solution is morally and ethically wrong considering the responsibility of medics, society, and law makers.
Currently, physician-assisted suicide or death is illegal in all states except Oregon, Vermont, Montana and Washington. Present law in other states express that suicide is not a crime, but assisting in suicide is. Supporters of legislation legalizing assisted suicide claim that the moral right to life should encompass the right to voluntary death. Opponents of assisted suicide claim that society has a moral and civic duty to preserve the lives of innocent persons. There is a slippery slope involving the legalizing assisted suicide. Concern that assisted suicide allowed on the basis of mercy or compassion, can and will lead to the urging of the death for morally unjustifiable reasons is understandable. However, legalization can serve to prevent the already existent practice of underground physician-assisted suicide if strict laws to ensure that the interests of the patients are primary are installed and enforced. When a patient asks for assistance in dying, their wishes should be respected as long as the patient is free from coercion and competent enough to give informed consent. The intent of this work is to examine the legalization of assisted suicide in Oregon and the Netherlands and to argue that assisted suicide is morally and ethically acceptable in theory despite some unintended consequences of its implementation.
The legalization of assisted suicide has been a controversial topic that has created a divide within the medical community, as well as the general public, for many years. Assisted suicide occurs when a patient decides to take their own life, with help from their doctor. The doctor can end the patient’s life without causing any additional pain or suffering. While some believe that assisted suicide should be legal for patients who are suffering from a terminal and painful condition, others argue that it is unethical and going against the doctor’s oath to help and not harm their patients. As the average life expectancy age increases, people are living longer while also having to live with more serious illnesses. As a result, lives are ending with a great amount of suffering and pain, rather then dying peacefully. Since death is ultimately inevitable, I will therefore argue in favor of the proposition that assisted suicide should be legal for those capable of making a rationale end of life decision.
This paper will show the reader how social workers develop a theoretical orientation by first understanding assessing and understanding the client’s needs. For a social worker to been effective they must remember that they have to learn
Through defining our worldview, we are better able to understand the congruence between our personal philosophies and the values and ethics of the social work profession, as well as those of our clients. A disconcerting error that many social workers make when beginning social work practice is to impose their own values upon the client and failing to honor self-determination. This mistake often happens because the social worker has not clearly defined his or her own values and beliefs, and unconsciously projects his or her worldview onto the client’s presenting concern. Social workers may also hold too rigidly to their own values and fail to recognize clients’ rights to their own standards and beliefs. Once a social worker has clarified his or her worldview and personal values, it is imperative to assess how these values contribute to the development of relationships with clients and how their beliefs may negatively affect direct
Social work in its daily practice is based on many theories, local and indigenous knowledge of its context based on evidence derived from the evaluation of various researches and studies, and a comprehensive view of biological, psychological and social factors. and interactions between humans and their environment.