Atul Gawande in his article “Whose body is it, anyway?” introduced couple of cases, which discussed a controversial topic, doctors dealing with patients and making important medical decisions. These are difficult decisions in which people might have life or death choices. Who should make the important decisions, patients or doctors? Patients don’t usually know what is better for their health and while making their decisions, they might ignore or don’t know the possible side effects and consequences of these decisions. Doctors and physicians have more and better knowledge than normal people about human body and they are able to assist their patients while making tough decisions. However, they can not always make the right decision. Doctors can not predict the result of a surgery or a treatment and they do not have enough confidence of the result because sometimes the surgery could go in a way they didn’t expect. Although patients have the right to decide their treatments, doctors and patients should share …show more content…
They would do anything in order to live longer, ignoring that they might suffer or die because of the decision. In the case of Joseph Lazaroff, the doctor discovered tumors in his spine. Lazaroff had two choices, either having the surgery to remove the tumors or doing nothing about it. His doctor explained to him the consequences of the surgery that there was a risk of affecting his legs or dying. Even though Lazeroff knew about the risks, he chose to undergo the surgery and took the risk of dying to live. The result was a successful operation but Lazeroff died while recovering (Gawande P.87). Lazeroff thought he was making the right decision but it want bad. The doctor knew the result of the surgery in Lazeroff’s condidtion and he knew that Lazeroff was at risk of dying. Therefore, he should have disagreed with the patient’s decision or refused to do the surgery to avoid such a thing from
The topic and history of medical ethics has consistently been a strongly debated issue. With numerous case-specific situations concerning as well as qualifying the matter, perhaps one of the most influential and debatable stories may be that of Henrietta Lacks. With non consensual tissue samples taken, unauthorized distribution of her cells, and seemingly careless radiation treatment for cervical cancer, it might be fair to adjudicate that the lack of ethical practice was apparent and almost even fatal. In the case study of Sofia (“Ethics in The Medical Field:
Both patients are choosing to die and taking deliberate measures to do so by changing the routine(s) of their treatment. If the means to die by stopping medication are permissible, the means to die by taking medication ought to be permissible. The advent of technology has made many contributions to sustain life. However, before this technology, many people would die without years of suffering. Today, people with critical illnesses are given the option to stop treatment in order to hasten death.
At times, doctors have to choose between the preservation and honor of a patient's dignity or to break ethical guidelines to help the human races’ health. A doctor who puts his patients’ well-being as his priority, usually respects the patient’s wishes. However, many factors influence a person’s decision to conduct an unethical experiment. In the contemporary biography, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot shows that scientists constantly discover and develop new concepts and procedures that help heal numerous people, despite the unethical experiments that they conduct on living organisms.
“Consent, an issue for the Patient” In 1951, Henrietta Lacks’ cells were taken without her knowledge and to this day are still being used , she never got any type of recognition for that either both financially and publicly . Giving permission to doctors to do what they want with your body is a big debate today . Some people believe that there is no need for doctors to ask , and others think if somebody has something the world needs there is no such thing as permission . These people also believe that your body should be at the full disposal of the doctors . If it is your body you should be the only person in charge of what happens to it .
“Being Mortal” by Atul Gawande is a book that anyone with parents or grandparents in the elderly stages of life can relate too. Many of the stories are relatable and during my time of reading the book I would take specific stories he tells and show them to my mom and ask her who in our family does this sound like and does this not sound like what we are going through with grandma. She immediately agreed and wanted to read on for the smallest idea to help or solution that could solve the problems and issues we are facing. Dr. Gawande is accounting the care and treatment of the elderly and the dying and how it has evolved and progressed over the last century to what it is today and could become within the future. Dr. Gawande was a general surgeon who took interest in the care and treatment of the elderly.
While I generally agree that most of the time the patient should defer to the medical professional’s expertise, I also believe that patient sometimes know more about
The thesis of this chapter states that in certain situations, it is crucial to listen to a medical professional, however, in others, it is very important to listen to yourself and also to do what you feel is right. The author of Complications," Atul Gawane, has written this specific chapter to persuade the reader of his thesis. If the choice you make is incorrect, then it could potentially be a matter of life and death. Atul Gawande gives multiple examples of patients that have made wrong and right decisions to prove his point. He uses the personal anecdotes of four different people, with four decisions to prove his point.
Death is something that will eventually happen to everyone, but there are so many different ways of people that deal with death around them. There are some people who don’t deal with death well, so they become mentally and emotionally unstable for their entire life. On the other hand, there are people who accept death for what it is and take the necessary steps to become more tolerant to it. In Being Mortal, by Atul Gawande, he speaks about the various aspects (such as the cost of taking care of elderly people) that surround death that people often neglect. Death can be a very taxing area of discussion, but once people accept its cruel nature they can overcome the burden it brings.
Life is never guaranteed and whether it is through an illness or an accident, we as humans are eventually going to die. Physicians Assisted suicide is one of the most controversial issues. The issue of doctor-assisted suicide has been the subject of the heated dispute in recent years. While some oppose the idea that a physician should aid in ending a life, others believe that physicians should be permitted in helping a patient to end his or her unbearable suffering when faced with a terminal illness. Furthermore, Physician-assisted suicide should be legal; it should be the patient’s right to decide when and how he or she should die.
This is a part of the stage where finding recovery and answers challenge doctors and the loved ones that are suffering. In the Institute of Medicine’s critical report Dying in America, there is an idea that emphasizes the importance of making a decision for the patient that is on the stage of death. JoAnn Grif, writer of Dying in America, identifies that decisions for a patient should be made before as a living will from the patient’s own preference and decision. Letting the doctor know so it can improve communication and awareness for the individual that is on treatment, and this consent should ahead of time and planned out. Although, how soon should patients reveal a will to their doctor, some will ask.
The moral concerns of Physician assisted suicide are equally sensitive and provocative; it is high on the debatable platform with other controversial topics such as abortion after three months. Many claimed that a physician assisted suicide is morally acceptable on behalf of a person who is dying and decided to end the agonizing pain and distress willing. Additionally, the doctor’s responsibility to ease the person’s pain and suffering, therefore, validates the aid provided. These debates are based on countless agreements on the person’s independence, hence, identifies the rights of capable people to decide how they are going to die and what time, especially while dealing with a deadly illness. In contrast, others have disputed the fact the physician assisted suicide is immoral and will be in conflict responsibility of the doctor, which is to save lives Also, they say if physician assisted suicide becomes legal , the chances for elder abuse will increased , mistreatment on the disabled and people living in poverty .
The ethical principle of autonomy provides for respect for the patient’s autonomy to make decisions and choices concerning their life and death. Respecting the patient’s autonomy goes against the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. There also exists the issue of religious beliefs the patient, family, or the caretaker holds, with which the caretaker has to grapple. The caretaker thus faces issues of fidelity to patient welfare by not abandoning the patient or their family, compassionate provision of pain relief methods, and the moral precept to neither hasten death nor prolong life.
They tend to be fairly because they know about medicine to know its limits; they don’t want to die. Surely, eacht doctor has the preparation for death. In the other hand, some patients try to find a method to overcome their illness.
(Keyes 206) Charlie now is completely certain that he will die, seeing all side-effects and the bad side of the operation. Last, the doctors were not supposed to harm him, even though that they probably knew about the outcome of the surgery, written in the Belmont Report, states “Two general rules have been formulated as complementary expressions of beneficent actions in this sense: 1. Do not harm and 2. Maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms.”
They are inheritors of a valuable tradition that inspires public trust. None should be even partly responsible for the erosion of that trust. Nothing that is remotely beneficial to some particular patient in extremis is worth the damage that will be created by the perception that physicians sometimes aid and even abet people in taking their own lives" (Battin 86) This shows that the actions that a person takes can create an effect that was not anticipated in the beginning. Connecting these two excerpts they are about responsibility and knowledge of one’s choice.