This begs the query, what has transpired to their commitment taken on oath to use their skills only for the benefit of their patients? The society’s anticipations of principled conduct from the medical practitioners have been unceasingly dropped by what looks to be a total disregard for the long-established trust that has existed between the patient and the doctor. A medical practitioner and a patient’s relationship is always a special one and technically privileged because it depends on the trust that the patient has in the practitioner’s professionalism. The medical practitioners must therefore have a primary responsibility that guides them to act in the best interest of their patients without an influence of personal consideration .
Imagine feeling a sharp pain like a knife in your chest, not knowing whether you’ll live or die. This is reality for some heart cancer patients. Heart cancer is a serious disease, because it is so serious people should take the time to study its rarity, its symptoms, treatments, prevention, and the history. Heart cancer is referred to as Primary Cardiac Tumor. The malignant is a cancerous tumor and causes cancer.
As it states in paragraph 3, sentence 1,"Hippocrates, fathers of medicine. " I think that the author is trying to say that the people think that the Hippocrates were like a God of medicine. Also in paragraph 1, it states "In ancient Greek (approximately 750 BCE) the practice of the medicine. " I think that the author is saying/stating facts about the Hippocrates. In the passage, it states that Socrates
The Hippocratic Oath is one of the oldest, most misinterpreted, documents in history. The goal of the oath is to treat the ill to the best of one’s abilities, to protect the privacy of the patient, to pass on the secrets of medicine to the next generations, and more ("Medical Definition of Hippocratic Oath"). This is usually taken by those beginning their medical practices and is still used today. It was written by Hippocrates, who was one of the greatest physicians, in the late fifth century (Walton and Kerridge). Since the Hippocratic Oath is interpreted in different ways, many suggest that it supports euthanasia.
Assisted suicide Euthanasia is mercy way of helping a patient who is suffering from severe pain from a certain injury or disease to get rid of this pain by mercy killing or assisted suicide. Euthanasia is killing the patient without any rights of taking his own soul which is a gift from god just because he is feeling the pain which could be cured or healed in the future, also refusing medicines and drugs is kind of legal euthanasia even if it is a cause of financial problems. This essay will outline the arguments against euthanasia as no human being should have the right to kill another person even with his permission to avoid suffering from certain pain. Different religions had prohibited euthanasia, there are different ethical arguments as there must be respect for the sanctity of life and all lives must be equal in value, no life is more worth than other just because of suffering pain or injury, some practical problem which make it more prohibitive as there is no way of regulating euthanasia and also gives doctor too much power. So I totally believe that Euthanasia should be banned globally for religious, ethical and practical reasons.
The medicine may take care of the physical, but the compassion deals with the mental, emotional, and spiritual elements of illness. Nevertheless, with combination of stress, long hours, pressure, and endless patients, health care providers tend to suffer from a condition called compassion fatigue. The condition of compassion fatigue, which has largely been overlooked until recently is a direct contributor to the decline of patient care by health care professionals over the course of their careers.
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.
That is very true, but the current laws that oppose euthanasia are for the protection of patients from abuse by dishonest actions and methods of physicians who will be ending their life, not to cause needless pain and suffering (Marker and Hamlon). Although there is little evidence on assisted suicide and euthanasia that is collected from real patients, the studies that collect data from current patients, and not hypothetical questioning, show different results than what is most broadcasted by supporters. These studies reveal that those who choose a premature death do so because of the fear instilled in them by the idea of physical deterioration and lose of community with the rest of society (Nolan n. pag.). It may seem that physical deterioration is the same as pain, but in this case, it is not. This type of physical deterioration is with the loss of community, which many believe to result in the loss of self, autonomy, and independence (Nolan n. pag.).
Physician- Assisted Death (PAD), or Euthanasia, is ending a patient’s life with the help of a physician. Euthanasia is painless and the patient would have to be diagnosed with an incurable disease or a terribly painful illness to even be considered. An individual will request euthanasia and will have to see a hospital psychologist to make sure he or she can come to terms with dying. There are many benefits to consider when thinking about euthanasia; the patient will not be in pain or suffer from the illness anymore, safer and more effective than a patient trying to end their life on his or her own terms, hospitals and family members would actually save money, and the patients’ feel more control over their own death.
Additionally, dismissing a patient when they do propose ideas. The patient has no chance of making any decision, it lies entirely with the doctor. Also, ordering treatments in which the patient is purely passive. For example, performing surgery leaves a patient completely passive. These last two restrictors can be very damaging for patients being treated with mental illness.
Whenever someone sees a doctor, they automatically assume that they are medical doctors. Many people do not know that there is more than one type of doctors. This does not necessary include the field of doctors, but rather the type. The other type of doctor is known as a D.O., which is also known as an osteopathic doctor. I, myself, did not even know what a D.O. was.
Dossey mentioned in his book on how western medicine was based on human knowledge at the time. For example, the book entitled “Reinventing Medicine: Beyond Mind-Body to a new era of healing” noted how during the 19 century President George Washington was blead to remove is illness, rather than, fighting his infection physicians in that time promoted the aliment to progress (Dossey, 2000). Therefore, George Washington’s physicians practiced what seemed the ideal method. Similarly, the medical field today base their patient care on knowledge acquired.
The question of what is considered ethical in the medical field is highly debatable. “Reprogramming the Ethics of Med Students” is an article written by Lane Wallace discussing a study performed by the Mayo Clinic. Although this article is successful at bringing awareness to the issue of ethics by providing the reader with a surplus of data, the credentials and reliability of the author could be questioned. The article begins with a description of the study performed by the Mayo Clinic.
If a person told someone that whatever they told them would not leave the room, would that person be able to keep that secret? What if they told them that an innocent person got put in jail for a crime they did not commit? Chuck Klosterman begins to explain that a patient had headaches and that an innocent person was convicted of a serious crime that the patient had committed. The headaches then resolved after getting the truth out to the doctor. The way the doctor responds to the situation is another way of determining what type of person they are, or what resolution of the situation will best respect the rights of both the doctor and the patient.