Untimely Death
Death, is it okay to let a suffering person die, or should doctors give them a lethal
injection to end their suffering? Many people have different views on this situation, but I believe
that it is the patients decision because the patient knows how much pain they are in, and if they
can not take it any longer. In the essay "Active and Passive Euthanasia" James Rachels wrote
that he thinks that it is a better choice morally to withdraw life support, and let a person die,
rather than ending a persons life through other means.
I do not believe that if a patient is about to die, and that patient makes a request to
withhold treatment that the doctor should withhold it. To me that is going to make the patient
suffer even more than he already is, so I believe that the doctor should either continue giving the
patient their treatment, or ask if they would like to have their life terminated with a lethal
infection.
I also believe that the patients immediate family should have a say in what happens.
Let's say that the patient has been in a coma for several months, and the only thing that is
keeping the patient alive is a life support system, then the family should have the choice on if
they want the patient to live or die. I also believe that the family should choose, if the patient is
alive, but he is going through tremendous suffering, and if the patient is aware of thing, but isn't
responding to the things around him.
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. I believe that if a patient is ready to die that
their treatment should not be withheld, the doctor's should either keep giving the patient
treatments, or take other measures to end the patients life.
The patient might just be waiting for the disease they have caught to kill them, but it does not always go so quickly . ¨Ending a patient's life by injection, with the added solace that it will be quick and painless, is much easier than this constant physical and emotional care¨ (Ezekiel Emanuel, 1997, p. 75). If a patient is terminally ill and will not get better, it allows them to end the suffering. If the physician has to keep a constant eye on the patient and they need constant care and the patient is not getting better, the option is there if they want to end all of it they can. Sometimes dealing with all of the physical care like medications and not being able to live completely normal with a disease is hard. It can get extremely hard and stressful that all the patients can think about doing is ending it, this alternative gives the patient a painless option. According to Somerville (2009), ¨… respect for people's rights to autonomy and self determination means everyone has a right to die at a time of their choosing¨ ( p.4). The patient deserves to choose whether they want to keep fighting or if they cannot go any farther. The patient should not have to push through a fight they have been fighting and know they cannot win. According to Kevorkian ¨the patient decides when it's best to go.¨ Nobody tells the patient when they have to end their lives, they understand their body and know
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.
...t’s family should be able decide for the patient whether or not prolonging their life is moral.
There are several important ethical issues related to euthanasia. One is allowing people who are terminally ill and suffering the right to choose death. Should these people continue to suffer even though they really are ba...
We consider the legislation consistent with the principle that "respect for that person [who is capable of participating] mandates that he or she be recognized as the prime decision-maker" in treatment. [2] The patient is a person in relationship, not an isolated individual. Her or his decisions should take others into account and be made in supportive consultation with family members, close friends, pastor, and health care professionals. Christians face end-of-life decisions in all their ambiguity, knowing we are responsible ultimately to God, whose grace comforts, forgives, and frees us in our dilemmas.
Patients are ultimately responsible for their own health and wellbeing and should be held responsible for the consequences of their decisions and actions. All people have the right to refuse treatment even where refusal may result in harm to themselves or in their own death and providers are legally bound to respect their decision. If patients cannot decide for themselves, but have previously decided to refuse treatment while still competent, their decision is legally binding. Where a patient's views are not known, the doctor has a responsibility to make a decision, but should consult other healthcare professionals and people close to the patient.
own will or suicide be a moral act? What about a patient that is suffering from
There is great debate in this country and worldwide over whether or not terminally ill patients who are experiencing great suffering should have the right to choose death. A deep divide amongst the American public exists on the issue. It is extremely important to reach an ethical decision on whether or not terminally ill patients have this right to choose death, since many may be needlessly suffering, if an ethical solution exists.
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.
I personally feel that the life of a person is well above all policies and regulations and if an attempt to rescue him or her from death at the right time remains unfulfilled, it is not the failure of a doctor or nurse, it is the failure of the entire medical and health community.
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. Young explains that patients who are unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure, or with incurable medical conditions are individuals who should have access to either euthanasia or assisted suicide. Advocates agreeing to this method do understand that choosing death is a very serious matter, which is why it should not be settled in a moment. Therefore, if a patient and physician agree that a life must end and it has been discussed, and agreed, young concludes, “ if a patient asks his physician to end his life, that constitutes a request for
Only the patient wouldn’t have to suffer as long. On the other hand, physical pain is not the only form of suffering. One must take into consideration the patient’s mental health. When the patient knows they are going to die and they understand more pain and suffering are to come, the more humane way would be to let the patient choose to die peacefully. Also, a patient that is psychologically suffering could decide to end their lives in a non-peaceful manner.
life-sustaining treatment that a patient wants but that they deem "futile." or "inappropriate" or "inappropriate." Alarmingly, hospitals in California and throughout the country have begun. to implement these "futile-care" policies that state, in effect: "We reserve the right to refuse service. " Medical and bioethics journals for several years kept up a drumbeat. advocating the implementation of medical futility policies that hospitals for obvious reasons -- don't publicize.
Even if it may save a life? The article points out how there is no clear answer to this question, “Was it right to withhold potentially life-saving therapy because two doctors drew an arbitrary line in the sand?” (Fey,
Withdrawing Treatment, where like you stop the machine which is keeping the person alive or