Coping with chronic illnesses might be a bit more difficult for individual knowing that the illness is not temporary. However, the best way to live life through any illness, whether that be asthma or cancer, is first and foremost to have a positive outlook on life. A psychological way of coping with chronic illnesses is through appraisals (Gurung, 2013, p 309). Being sick and knowing that one has support through family and friends, can help cope with the idea of being chronically ill. Marital status, also has a huge influence in coping with chronic illnesses (August & Sorkin, 2010).
Hospice and palliative care can be easily intertwined; they are both concerned with promoting comfort and relieving patient pain. Hospice and palliative care, however, are different in some aspects. Patients who receive hospice care are nearing the end of their lives and there is no effort to cure their disease; the goal is to provide pain relief, a sense of belonging from family and friends if desired, support through the dying stages, and to assure that the person is able to die with dignity. Palliative care is also focused on reducing discomfort; however, the patient receiving care can be at any stage in their disease. Additionally, palliative care can also be administered during a time when a patient is receiving treatment to cure their illness.
Pain and suffering of a patient’s family can be reduced (McKhann, “A Time to Die). PAS takes away the guilt of a dying patient of being a burden to the family. People who are pushing for the legalization of physician-assisted suicide say that there are terminally ill individuals who feel that they emotionally, physically and financially drain members of the family because of their being sick. For some of these people, the best way to remove the guilt they have, it would be best for all if all these hardships will be put to an end through PAS. Physician-Assisted Suicide has thorough guidelines and regulations (Schafer, “Physician-assisted Suicide:
It is also possible that Mr. Khan’s belief’s and values about artificial hydration and nutrition through a tube hinders his dignity and he would rather want to die peacefully (Preston & Kelly, 2006). No one really knows what Mr. John would want for sure. In such cases, where the prior wishes of the patients are unknown, a family member can make a decision that will reveal patient’s best interests (Yeo & Moorhouse,
It is recognizable that assisted suicide goes against human nature. Physician assisted suicide is judged morally wrong because every human is inclined to continue living. In the event that a terminally ill patient cannot be cured, palliative sedation is an option. According Boudreau, “we believe that the art of healing should always remain at the core of medical practice…sedation is morally acceptable to avoid severe pain…sedation achieves a humane and compassionate period for the patient, caregivers, and family without precipitating important concerns about slippery slopes”. Healthcare facilities have to comply with the rules and regulations.
-Johns Hopkins Medicine provides Hospice Care to manage pain and signs of illness. Hospice care contributes emotionally, spiritually, and socially to patients and their family. The purpose is to provide relaxation and care, but not the cure to the diseases. Hospice Care primary goal is to control the pain and symptom of their patient. Hospice care goes all the way out for the terminally ill to helping them seek the pleasure in life.
The reason why the majority of individuals avert their focus from death is understandable because death’s eventual occurrence reminds us of the finiteness of existence. While this fear and consequential disguising are understandable, it stunts the emotional progress of our society by not allowing for the acceptance of death, which is necessary for mature growth. Because of the emotionally painful nature of death, we hide behind calming phrases such as “passed away” or “went to a better place,” furthermore, many rationalize with death by accepting an afterlife which they may have previously denied. As Miller expressed in the New York Times article, One Man’s Quest to Change the Way We Die, “Parts of me died early on... And that’s something,
Beside my stand, others believes Physicians and other medical care people should not involve themselves indirectly causing death; however, if they will not be willing to provide a way to relieve extreme pain when a person 's quality of life is low, then what is the meaning of freedom of choice for citizen is when they cannot choose the right for themselves. Even though, the author had “dreamed of disconnecting” her patient’s respirator, yet every day she forced to “make her death impossible and her life unbearable” (Page 458). As the Physician she “ feel differently toward her than the father toward his son”, and that is why the author did not takes off the respirator; knowing, it would be an easy way for killing the women, since never have the same emotional connection as the father (page 458). Finally, the author never had the admiration feeling for women to be able to convict a murder just as the father has done for his infant. Risking one’s life for someone else is not supporting euthanasia, yet giving peace to those painful souls one’s should not have the guilt to live
For example, the Doctrine of Double Effect would say it is wrong to administer sedatives to a very ill patient cancer patient to end their life even though they are suffering and don’t want to live. On the other hand, it’s okay to give the patient sedatives for the purpose of relieving pain knowing it might kill them because if the death of the patient occurs as a foreseen side effect, it is not morally wrong. The doctrine of double effect cares more about the doctor’s intentions, but doesn’t seem to have any regard for the patients will, informed consent, and severity of their suffering, which are important personal variables to take into account. What would the doctrine of double effect say if after giving the painkillers to the patient he or she says I want to die wouldn’t that automatically make you guilty if the patient ends up dying? Can one still argue they are not intending to help one die?
Why Assisted Suicide Should be Illegal Did you know that 63 percent of elderly individuals would choose assisted suicide in fear of being a burden to their family, friends, or caregivers(Golden)? Many people think that taking their life is a free choice but often, external pressure, mental illnesses, and financial means come into play with the decision to “escape”. For these reasons, legalization of assisted suicide would provide more deaths and widespread acceptance of suicide changing our society forever. First of all , external pressure on physician-assisted suicide would consist of their families and the patient’s dependency on his or her’s machine. Patients often feel pressured to end their life because they feel their life has lost all value to it and will constantly be a burden to carry.
There are populations such as the poor, elderly and minorities that can be taking advantage of and not informed of other options for their life. Vicki D. Lachman writes an article entitled; Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking: An Ethical Alternative to Physician- Assisted Suicide. The author talks about the need to assist dying patients by taking a deeper look into palliative care and providing the patient with the necessities and information about withholding treatment that can save their lives (Lachman, 2015, p. 56). The author of the article expressed her concerns that nurses can play a role in providing patients with the knowledge about voluntary stopping of eating and drinking due to the fact that nurses spend more time communicating with the patients and getting to know them in an intimate fashion (Lachman, 2015, p. 59).
Some believe that this undermines the role of a physician as a healer. This argument is somewhat valid, but still should not make Physician Assisted Suicide illegal. The way I see it, a physician is always there to help it may be killing but the Physician is just prescribing the dose and the patient takes the pill on his/her own. Another argument is that a physician who helps a patient commit suicide, breaks the trust and bonds between a patient and his/her doctor. Again, we have a valid point.
The intent of Assisted Suicide is to eliminate the pain and suffering of a patient by in a sense being able to “Die with Dignity.” (Endlink3) However, this idea violates the morals of others, sends a negative message to individuals who are struggling,and terminates the possibility of the situation
However, the negative views of this practice seem to overshadow the positive and assumptions are made that Physician-assisted suicide is an impractical way of ending a life. This practice is deemed as the worst from views of ethics, religion, medical practice, and more. However, it is an option and an option that does not have to be chosen if not wanted. That is what is ignored, but that is what people need to realize. No life has to be taken, but the option of ending your life peacefully should not be taken as well.
The last argument that this paper will look at is the argument of double effect. In the context of terminal illness physician assisted suicide could instead be seen as a vital form of care for someone who is suffering, instead of the failure of medicine. Physician assisted suicide seems to oppose the pro-life view, but on closer examination, its purpose is instead to relieve suffering in imminently terminal cases where it is thought that no other treatment could reasonably hope to do the same. Even though traditionally the role of the doctor is seen as extending life, that role may also encompass the assistance in PAS.