Should Dying Persons Be Kept On Life Support Machine?
Keeping a patient on life support is not a bad idea, it only becomes very controversial when the chances of an individual to survive are very rare. The opinions might be divided on the matter, but it is very imperative to note that the act of placing an individual on a life support when their chances of survival are minimum is unacceptable. It is for this very reason that I tend to suggest that there is no tangible point in placing someone who is very ill in a life-supporting machine. It is one of the most unethical practices that are still being witnessed in the field of medicine.
One of the motives as to why the life support machine was invented was to help the body to perform certain duties that it was unable to do. In the event that a sickling individual is already bedridden, chances are very high that almost all parts of the person’s body is not operating. It, therefore, becomes very difficult for the life support machine to continue providing the services that it was intended to do in an effective manner. When all the parts of an individual’s body are not functioning properly, it is prudent that the life support machine is not applied to help the patient to continue surviving. It is because it only continues to do more harm than good to the person placed in the life support machine. Also, the other function of the life support machine is to help keep the patient alive just before the recommended further treatment can be administered. However, when all the recommended treatments have been administered and the patient is not responding, the continued putting the patient on the life support machine is not advisable (Evans, 2011).
Another point to put across is...
... middle of paper ...
... to make them pass away in a peaceful manner.
In the event that the dying people who had been kept in the life support machines start to recover from the medication, what is for sure is that their lives will never be the same again. They will have to undergo several other treatments to sustain their lives. Also, there are numerous precautions that the family will have to take so as to make their lives better in the society.
In conclusion, the use of life support machine is meant for temporary purposes. A dying person should not be kept on the life support machine for a long duration of time because it only creates false hopes among the close relatives of the dying person. Not so many people have recovered from the use of the life support machine. But the few who have managed to recover do not live the same life they used to live before being subjected to the machine.
The patients will have the understanding that if they cannot keep fighting the option is available. ¨ There is not more profoundly personal decision, nor one which is closer to the heart of personal liberty, than the choice which a terminally ill person makes to end his or her suffering and hasten an inevitable death¨ ( Sarah Henry, 1996, p. 10). If they are ready to end it, the option is available. They know the choice they make will affect them, but it also helps to know if they cannot go on they can tell the doctor and they will end it. ¨ Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations is the first religious group to pass in favor of Euthanasia for the terminally ill¨ ( Leading Issue Timelines, 2017, p. 8¨. The terminally ill should have the right to know if they are going to be allowed to end their lives if the fighting gets hard and to unbearable. They do not want to give up just to be on the road of a slow and possibly painful death. ¨ Between physician and patient concerning a request for assisted suicide be witnessed by two adults¨ ( Yale Kamisar, 1998, p. 6). The doctor´s are not going to just inject the patient with the killing drug. The patient has to be able to say for themselves and someone else has to be present when said, when gone over and when they are injected. The family can know their family member really wants to follow through with it and they have
family chooses to take their loved one off of life support. A PVS patient has no
According to a doctor in the documentary, people are coming to the ICU’s to die. (Lyman et al, 2011) Due to the fact that technology to sustain life is available the decision to end life has become much more complicated yet more people die in hospitals then anywhere else. (Lyman et al, 2011) The story of Marthe the 86 year old dementia patient stood out to me upon viewing the documentary because I recently just had my great grandmother go through the same situation. (Lyman et al, 2011) Marthe entered the ICU and was intubated for two weeks while her family members decided whether to perform a tracheotomy or take her off life support. (Lyman et al, 2011) The family was having a tough time deciding due to the fact that the doctors could sustain Marthe’s life if they requested it. Marthe ended up being taken off the ventilator and to everyone’s surprise was able to breathe but, a day later she could no longer do so and now she has been on life support for a year. (Lyman et al, 2011) Another patient that I took particular interest in was John Moloney a 53 year old multiple myeloma patient who has tried every form of treatment with no success. (Lyman et al, 2011) Despite trying everything he still wanted treatment so he could live and go home with his family but ended up in
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
The term Euthanasia is derived from the Greek roots, taking the words ‘eu’, meaning good or well, and ‘thanatos’, meaning death, to create the term “good death ”. (Definition of Euthanasia . 2011) The term ‘Euthanasia’ is not defined specifically within Australian Legislation, however the generalised definition states that Euthanasia is intentionally taking another person’s life by the means of a direct action or depriving a person of the medical care needed to preserve life. (Euthanasia: What Does It Really Mean? Date Unknown). Linda Jackson (2005) continues to add that Euthanasia can then be further separated into four specified categories: Passive voluntary euthanasia, active voluntary euthanasia, passive involuntary euthanasia and active involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary Euthanasia will be the specified area that will be focused on within this assignment.
When someone finds themself in a life-or-death situation, their judgement becomes clouded. People can make a decision that they may regret in the long run, but it has saved their life. Most of the time, these people do things that they don’t know enough about- leading to clouded judgement in life-or-death situations. They do not inform themselves as much as they should, and they decide to do something that would put them in threat of danger. People take risks every day, they know what these risks are- but they still choose to go through with their actions. People in life-or-death situations should be held accountable for their actions because they have control over putting themselves in these types of situations that have any risk.
Is it moral to withdraw a life-support system which is believed to be an inappropriate extension of the dying process? The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) believes that in cases where patients are terminally ill, death appears imminent and treatment offers no medical hope for a cure, it is morally appropriate to request the withdrawal of life-support systems, allowing natural death to occur. In such cases, every effort should be made to keep the patient free of pain and suffering, with emotional and spiritual support being provided until the patient dies. The National Association of evangelicals believes that in cases where extensive brain injury has occurred and there is clear medical indication that the patient has suffered brain death (permanent unconscious state), no medical treatment can reverse the process. Removal of any extraordinary life-support system at this time is morally appropriate and allows the dying process to proceed.(National)
Through advances in medical technology, some patients who previously would have passed away can now be kept alive by artificial ways. In some cases a patient may want such treatment because it is a momentary step possibly leading to the restoration of
There are places where patients receive Euthanasia, and although the people in the vegetative state cannot see, the peace is something that you don’t need to see to feel it. Also, Euthanasia will save money to the family, as reported by The New York State Department of Health, “Under any new system of health care delivery, as at present, it will be far less costly to give a lethal injection than to care for a patient throughout the dying process." Besides, there is no reason to keep a person alive if there is not a possibility of recover it would only affect the economy. As stated by the Medical Billing Advocates of America, “as many people have seen, the final cost associated with life support can be an enormous burden once that loved one has passed away.” Contrasting the cost of Euthanasia with the cost of keeping someone alive, the results show a considerable difference of spend that if possible should be avoided. Nevertheless, there are cases where it is worthy to spend all this money, for example, if there is hope of a recovery, the family will never consider any amount of money too much for a second chance in their relative
Terminally ill patients should have the legal option of physician-assisted suicide. Terminally ill patients deserve the right to control their own death. Legalizing assisted suicide would relive families of the burdens of caring for a terminally ill relative. Doctors should not be prosecuted for assisting in the suicide of a terminally ill patient. We as a society must protect life, but we must also recognize the right to a humane death. When a person is near death, in unbearable pain, they have the right to ask a physician to assist in ending their lives.
Imagine visiting your 85-year-old mother in the hospital after she has a debilitating stroke. You find out that, in order to survive, she requires a feeding tube and antibiotics to fight an infection. She once told you that no matter what happened, she wants to live. But the doctor refuses further life-sustaining treatment. When you ask why, you are told, in effect, "The time has come for your mother to die. All we will provide is comfort care."
The patient should have the choice to decide if they want to continue or end care. If a patient chooses to continue end of life care, the fees should fall on the individual and their families. Especially if ones conditions are continuing to worsen with little progress. The majority of society wants to live longer and healthier lives, so there’s nothing wrong with wanting to continue services that do just that. Once it gets to the point that a person is only alive because of a ventilator or some other medical treatment, and the person is unable to perform basic daily functions on their own it is time to consider ending one’s life. Once a patient has become dependent on a medical tool and can no longer live without, some may look at this as torture. Being keep alive and barely striving, may be looked at as a waste of money and bed space. No one can put a price on life nor can anyone tell someone when they should end their life in end of life care situations. With that being said, if a patient would like to continue end of life care they have the right to do so at their own
The problem explored in the article was stated as a problem statement. In this article, the authors explain about the stressful situations of families having loved ones die in the intensive care unit. They also state that this problem is very important because there is poor communication between staff, physicians, and surrogates in the plan of care for end-of-life measures (Lautrette et al., 2007).
One bad consequence that some anticipate is that active euthanasia would weaken society's commitment to providing optimal care for dying patients. Today, our health care system is largely focused on medical costs and if patients are able to afford it or not. “Euthanasia is…a very cheap service. The cost of a dose of barbiturates and curare and the few hours in a hospital bed that it takes them to act is minute compared to the massive bills incurred by many patients in the last weeks and months of their lives” (Potts 81). If euthanasia appears to be a cheaper method than providing hospice care would this potentially have a negative effect on how patients who do not chose euthanasia are treated? This is an answer we do not know for certain but it should not be disregarded. Additionally, legalizing euthanasia would also diminish all hope. Most people have heard of a miracle story about a patient who had a limited amount of time left to live and made a shocking recovery. These doctors who made the prognosis of patients whom have made a shocking recovery against all odds “... [experience] the wonderful embarrassment of being proven wrong in his or her pessimistic prognosis. To make euthanasia a legitimate option as soon as the prognosis is pessimistic enough is to reduce the probability of such extraordinary recoveries from low to zero” (Potts 79).