Decease donors in most cases write a will prior to their deaths permitting their own organs to be given to someone else. Apparently, this is considered to be the most appropriate because it does not cause any harm, especially physical harm to the donor. Furthermore, it is the will of the deceased that the living should respect and not go against. However, this kind of donation is against cultural and religious beliefs of some individuals who feel that dead people deserve their last respect. Other issues arise when a person is declared dead when they really aren’t because sometimes mistakes can be done in authentication.
Although there are some situations in which euthanasia could be exploited, my thesis will argue that it is not always morally wrong to end someone’s life in the circumstances in which euthanasia would be contemplated. The act of euthanising somebody can either be voluntary, in which the person believes their life is not worth living and asks for their life to be ended, or non-voluntary, in which they are unable to do so, and the decision on whether to end their life rests on doctors and family. Furthermore, there are different ways in which it could be performed: through medical intervention, (deliberately ending the patient’s life using medical equipment, such as through lethal injection), or medical non-intervention, (not making any efforts to prolong their life). Both will inevitably end the patient’s life, however, not
Patients understanding about cancer means "death" and most likely need to hide the diagnoses to them.. "It 's very unpleasant to tell the patient that they have a terminal illness. One can understand why most doctors and nurses neglect this duty" (Varga,1980). Few things need to consider when telling to patients and patients family with regards to their prognosis like patients reactions or emotions and even financial resource. Health care professional are expected to give the detailed information to their client whether it is desirable or undesirable news. But on the other hand, they need consider whether telling truth would help or make situations more worst.
But they should not have the freedom to choose to end their own lives with the help of a physician. Such laws devalue human life. Medical diagnoses are often inaccurate, leaving people who have been told they will soon die, to sometimes live for many months or even years longer. It can also be argued that seriously ill people often suffer from undiagnosed depression or other mental illnesses that can impair their ability to make an informed decision. As Christian myself, physician assisted suicide goes against principles of the bible.
Patients health status’ change constantly and there is no absolute guarantee that they have a certain number of months left to live. Sanders and Buchanan (2012), state the prognosis of a terminal illness is not reliable enough to let that decide whether a patient should have assisted suicide. When there is a chance someone could essentially live longer than the doctor thinks they will, it isn’t ethical to use that as a reason for dying. Another reason assisted suicide is opposed is because we can’t truly determine if it is really the patient’s choice. The whole reason for assisted suicide is so that the patient can ultimately have control over their own life, but it is possible that they may be being influenced by others that they should end their life.
Science also points in this direction, and many doctors agree that brain dead patients should be removed from life support because they are technically already dead (Rubin). Even so, it is difficult for families to make this choice because they don’t want to “kill” their loved ones if they
Assisted suicide is a rather controversial issue in contemporary society. When a terminally ill patient formally requests to be euthanized by a board certified physician, an ethical dilemma arises. Can someone ethically end the life of another human being, even if the patient will die in less than six months? Unlike traditional suicide, euthanasia included multiple individuals including the patient, doctor, and witnesses, where each party involved has a set of legal responsibilities. In order to understand this quandary and eventually reach a conclusion, each party involved must have their responsibilities analyzed and the underlying guidelines of moral ethics must be investigated.
Assisted suicide is the practice of ending someone 's life. (Newton, 7) A terminal illness is when you have a disease that will end your life within the near future. Some examples of a terminal illness include cancer, stroke, and ALS. Many people disagree with assisted suicide, but it is the better choice for those who do not what their disease to change who they are. The main arguments to allow this in our country is that the tremendous amount of pain and suffering of the patient will end, euthanasia, and health care costs will be reduced.
When dealing with this issue, it should not be forgotten that this is a discussion of life and death, where a decision is made on who lives, who dies and why. This issue is also regarding real people who are suffering, and decisions made based on good ethics and proper understanding of social and religious aspects will facilitate and make the process less painful. Both the community and physicians should therefore approach organ transplant positively and objectively and treat ethical, social and religious issues as negotiable perspectives and not barriers to organ
This result in the low chances of a viable organ from the dead to reach and save the life of the living. In “Yes, Lets Pay for Organs” Charles Krauthammer talks about paying the dead not living for organ donation to decrease the lack of it. He fails to see with both living and dead the odds of a successful transplant get