Suppose the patient and doctor decide not to treat the illness and let nature take its course in killing them. This is very common and patients decide not to receive treatment even though they know it will eventually kill them. The next argument is, what would be wrong with allowing euthanasia as a fast and painless death verses a slow deterioration if the ending result of them both is ultimately death. Singer claims, “If there is no intrinsic moral difference between killing and allowing to die, active euthanasia should also be accepted as humane and proper in certain circumstances” (Singer 2011,
The ideas behind this moral distinction is that in passive euthanasia the doctors are not actively killing anyone but they are just not saving the patients. Most people think that euthanasia can be justifiable, when the patients are facing incurable disease, undergoing suffer, terminally ill and requests for euthanasia as their last wishes. For instance, Somerville (2010) argued that it is important to respect the people’s right of self-determination and autonomy. In other words, people should have the right to choose their time of dying but the state have prevented and stop them from doing it.
Quill discusses how helping one of his patients to face death with dignity taught him that with knowing patients enough to know their true intentions for wanting to end their lives, he can provide the doctor care that he intends to. Dr. Quill had a working relationship with his patient, Diane who was diagnosed with myelomonocytic leukemia, a terminal disease that does not have any proven treatment or cure. By providing an indirect way for Diane to end her life, Dr. Quill allowed her to end her life prematurely, but with dignity and before being in a state that nobody would ever want to be
He had this responsibility because he made a promise. He had done what he could to keep Lennie out of trouble, by telling him to stay quiet, and not to talk to Curley’s wife. But, he couldn’t control himself. It was up to George to protect Lennie, and he did this by taking his life. Surely, dying in a second was a better outcome for Lennie than being beat, hung, and finally dying after being tortured.
I think he could have relied heavily on non-maleficence in a strict sense of the term that doctor should not do any harm. Also, throughout all four cases I believed that we relied heavily on taking into account how the family would be affected by the decision, which shows a utilitarian perspective. I also, noticed that when it came down to the final decisions autonomy of the patient was not always respected by all three of us, such as the car accident victim. She wanted death, but we all denied her because we were worried about her mental health. Although with autonomy we should have still respected her wishes, if we were solly basing our decision on
Also, by reporting the results publicly it provides the hospitals incentive for hospitals to improve care to their patients. It also gives the hospital transparency by allowing the public to see the results of the surveys. I have mixed feelings about the survey. I understand quality care is hard to measure accurately. Usually people will fill out surveys when they had a bad experience, so I do not think it would reflect the full truth of the quality of patient care.
Kenny is told about the life Landon will have if he survived the 2 pronged surgeries which given the severity of the lesion would be lifeless and bedridden anyway. After agreeing to the surgery, Kenny is informed he has a choice: surgery or “let nature take its course.” Unfortunately, Landon is born with one of the most severe cases of Spina Bifida Hermann Hospital has seen and not all doctors agree to the choice Kenny has made for his son. The Sparks now must explain to the ethics committee why it would be more humane to let Landon die, then to watch him possibility live and suffer.” This is going to sound terrible for a mother to say, but I want him to die.” “If he lives that the way it should be, but
In 1995 Mickey was diagnosed with advanced liver cancer. Mickey received a liver transplant hoping it would help. However, the new liver died soon after. Mickey’s Final wishes were that people would not look up to him because he thought he was a bad role model. He also wished that more people would be organ donors because even though it didn’t work for him it could heal someone else.
The Donald (Dax) Cowart case gave me more of an awareness of how important a patient’s rights are. This case established why listening to the patient is significant and how violating their right to refuse treatment can impact their future. Dax was severely burned and he would have died if he was not treated. The treatments were excruciating and Dax just really wanted to die. Instead of allowing him to refuse treatment and end his life the doctors told him they were going to treat him so he can have a future.
David writes how he felt as though he was to blame in some way although he was a great father, even after divorcing Nic’s mother. A doctor explains to David that addiction is a disease and the symptom of that disease is using the drug and being out of control, powerless against the drug; the doctor also explains that insurance companies cover disease, addiction being one of those diseases because if it wasn’t your insurance company surely would not cover rehabilitation. But if we are to scrap the disease concept and replace it with something valid, our new explanation must retain all the beneficial aspects of the disease concept. It must not allow moralizing or any other negative attributions to people suffering with addictions. In fact, we'd hope an alternative explanation would have more value than the disease label, by giving people with addictions something the disease concept lacks: an understanding that is useful for treating the problem.