Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The perspective of history
Perspective of history
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The perspective of history
In their “The withdrawal of nutrition and hydration in the vegetative state patient: Societal dimension and issues at stake for the medical profession,” Gian L. Gigli and Mariarosaria Valente argue points against the withdrawal of assisted nutrition and hydration. They believe this decision will possibly cause an ethical impact on the medical field and on society as a whole. Within the article, the authors attempt to evaluate the historical background, the quality of human life, the problem of consent, and consequences of withdrawing assisted nutrition of those in permanent vegetative state. The authors believe “nutrition and hydration should always be provided to patients (including patients in VS) unless they cannot be assimilated by a person’s body, they do not sustain life, or their only mode of delivery imposes grave burdens on the patient or others” (327). The purpose of this article is to persuade the readers to keep a patient, even determined to be in permanent vegetative state, on assisted hydration and nutrition. Interestingly, the authors “observations” are not backed up by data from research. For example, Gigli and Valente state they “observed a weakening of the concept of sanctity of life and a decrease in the strength of social solidarity, the combination of which made unacceptable the financial burdens caused to society by the presence of large numbers of chronic, totally dependent patients” (315). Audacious claims are made and lack support by facts. This article, additionally, declares, “Medical tradition in fact opposes all intentional killing of patients, . . . even when omitting basic means of survival” (316). It is necessary for such a bold statement to be validated, instead of solely stated. Instead of usi... ... middle of paper ... ...lf, to decide to or not to cut off assisted nutrition and hydration. Contradictory, the article later states “However, this is not always the case even in mentally competent, severely disabled persons” (319). The authors switch back and forth from supporting their claim, to opposing it. I believe the authors did a very poor job in writing this article. Its claims are rarely supported by evidence, and only secondary sources are used when they are backed up. Also, Gigli and Valente are very biased and use emotional and bold words consistently. This makes the article invalid and unreliable. The majority of the authors’ statements cover personal opinions and their interpretations of facts. The article mostly contradicts itself and the argument is extremely repetitive. Though the article mostly stays on topic, the majority of its arguments are atrocious.
Do the authors appear to be treating the issue seriously? Does Brooks or Tannen seem to be more serious?
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
However, the good is outweighed by the bad in that this article has almost no factual support. Worley seems to be venting her thoughts without any outside factual support. It is difficult to label this article as effective due to the lack of any factual support and evidence to back up her arguments. That is exactly what needs to change in the article. Worley must use more sources for information to back up her points, then the article may be more convincing and worth
The boundaries of right to die with dignity are hard to determine. Keeping the terminal patient comfortable is the purpose of comfort care, however there could be a very thin line between what we consider terminal sedation and euthanasia. In theory, comfort care is quite different from euthanasia. Keeping the patient comfortable and letting the nature take its course is at the core of comfort measures (Gamliel, 2012). Yet, the line between keeping comfortable and facilitating death is often blurry. Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering (Gamliel, 2012). The purpose of this paper is to highlight the ethical issue of keeping comfortable vs. hastening death, and the ethical principles involved. Facilitating or hastening death is considered unethical or even illegal.
All creatures on earth just want to live very long, and the human has more avid than any other creature on our planet. The patients having critical diseases want to prolong their lives, so they want to believe in doctors and modern medical system. I believe that they want to live because they still have a lot of things that they have to do, or they don’t want to make their family feel upset when they pass away. Moreover, their family have too many expectations of the medical treatments and the doctors, but the results are always negative. My close friend’s family is an example. When his grandmother’s diabetes was in the last period, she had to get some surgeries because her feet were gangrenous. After that surgeries, she told she feels very painful and just wants to die, but she does not want to make her family feel bad. Therefore, she had suffered her painful with an expectation prolonging her life on a hospital bed. Many people nearing the end of their lives have to suffer many medical treatments looking like a mortification. “Many people think of CPR as a reliable life save when, in face, the results are usually poor,” written by the author, has demonstrated for that examples. In addition, the doctors are the second factor that affects to the decision using medical treatments. All of the doctors just want to try their best to cure the patients, and they want to help the
Even though Barbara’s intentions in this paper are directly stated, her claims she gives does not back her argument at all. After reading her major claim, which states that we do not have the right to die (97), I feel the complete opposite of what she thinks and I believe a person should have the right to die if there is no chance of them getting better in the future. The author’s grounds explained all of the struggles of keeping a very sick man alive, which I believe gave me some very good evidence to write my counter argument.
Tom Harpur, in his 1990 article in the Toronto Star - "Human dignity must figure in decisions to prolong life" - presents numerous arguments in support of his thesis that the use of advanced medical technology to prolong life is often immoral and unethical, and does not take into consideration the wishes of the patient or their human dignity. However, it must be noted that the opening one-third of the article is devoted to a particular "human interest" story which the author uses to illustrate his broader argument, as well as to arouse pity among readers to support his view that human life should not always be prolonged by medical technology. This opening section suggests that a critical analysis of Harpur 's arguments may find widespread use of logical fallacies in support of the article 's thesis. In this essay I will argue that, given how greatly
In Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Values, Peter Singer examines ethical dilemmas that confront us in the twentieth century by identifying inconsistencies between the theory and practice of ethics in medicine. With advancements in medical technology, we focus on the quality of patients’ lives. Singer believes that in this process, we have acknowledged a new set of values that conflicts with the doctrine of the sanctity of life.
I found the problem with the argument of the article was there was no set argument that was clearly stated. If there was an argument in the article it was not clearly stated and I personally did not catch onto it. Altogether this was a well written article without a clear argument.
The case of Nancy Cruzan has become one of the landmark cases for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration because of important ethical issues the case brings to light. At the time of the case, the United States Supreme Court had already established the right of an individual to refuse medical treatment. This issue therefore is not novel to the Cruzan case. Furthermore, there was not any controversy over who was the appropriate decision maker for Nancy Cruzan. The significant issue that the Cruzan case did bring to the table of medical ethics regarded whether or not a substituted decision make could choose to withdraw artificial hydration and nutrition on behalf of another individual.
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.
Gabrielle Saveri. "An ethicist insists patients need help living, not dying." People May 1995. Vol. 43
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."
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.
I have used this journal as a source to many of my researches before and I find them to be very reliable. Statistics stated in this particular article are well sourced, and I have not discovered any sourcing errors, as well as grammatical errors. This source is not objective, but it is not as biased as some of the other articles I have come across on the same topic. I do not believe that the article’s lack of objectivity takes away from its credibility. All of the claim are well documented, and the goal of this article is to bring light to the issue.