How Doctor Die By Ken Murray Analysis

Gill argues that keeping a person healthy cannot be a physician’s only moral duty because in cases of terminal ill patients, they can no longer be treated or healed (372). If a physician’s only duty were to heal patients then they would not tend to the terminally ill because there would be nothing else that they could do, which is something that most people would find to be morally wrong (Gill, 373). No one would be okay with a doctor not helping a person at all who has received a terminal sentence. So instead of promoting health in this case, the physicians must find a way to reduce the suffering of the patient. This means that the physician should be able to reduce the suffering in the way that the patient asks for. If this means that the patient is in extreme pain and requests for PAS, then the physician should be able to let them do so as long as they are in the correct state of mind to make that decision. Philosophers argue that helping to kill a patient could never be the best option, however in many cases it may be a better option than letting them suffer for more months to come (Gill,

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

Studies say that almost ninety percent of doctors would forgo medical resurrection or aggressive treatment if facing a terminal illness. This means that most doctors would rather die naturally at home than use heroic measures in the hospital. Yet they are still willingly using these heroic measures on their patients. Heroic measures should not be used on Alzheimer 's patients because Alzheimer’s is incurable, resuscitation could ruin their quality of life, and they could linger for years.

A hospice provides a more suitable environment for those at the final stages of their lives compared to a hospital for a multitude of reasons. Hospice care is designed to care for all aspects of the person life; they provide physical, mental, and religious services, as well as caring for the patient’s family. Since hospice care is also available at home, the patient has the opportunity to die in familiar surroundings. On the contrary, hospital care provides primarily physical services to the patient and is focused on the patient’s disease. Also, dying in a hospital can be less pleasant because a connotation of hospitals is illness which is a negative quality compared to that of a home, where a person is surrounded by their memories and belongings. The patient’s family is also cared for by hospice during and following the patient’s demise; however, this is not a service provided by

It brought to my awareness both the limitation and the capacity of medicine. Although there was no medical intervention that could cure the diseases of those terminal patients, their quality of life was improved  by an outstanding team of doctors, nurses and volunteers. This awareness helped reconcile myself to the fact that certain things, such as death and terminal illness, can not be avoided or changed. By viewing death as a natural part of life, I will be able to offer my dying patients the best care possible while also understanding my limitation as a physician and a human being.

The documentary, A Death of One’s Own, explores the end of life complexities that many terminal disease patients have to undergo in deciding on dying and dignity. It features three patients, their families, and caregivers debating the issue of physician-assisted suicide or pain relief than may speed up death. One character, Jim Witcher has ALS and knows the kind of death he is facing and wants to control its timing. Kitty Rayl is suffering from terminal cancer and wants to take advantage of her state’s Death with Dignity Act and take medication to terminate her life. Ricky Tackett, on the other hand, has liver failure and together with his family and caregiver agrees on terminal sedation to relieve his delirium and pain.

presents information about the relationship in the middle of death and life and the way of

The Frontline special on Being Mortal, written by Atul Gawande, shows the difficult side of healthcare that many doctors struggle with, how to confront death with patients. He brings light to topics like terminal illness and facing mortality. Atul Gawande is an oncologist whom, like many doctors, still wonders how to tell patients that their treatment is no longer working. He decided to collaborate with different physicians to gain a better understanding of how to approach the situation.

This important documentary does not come close to doing justice to Gawande 's video: Being Mortal. The book is rich with excellent examples of doctors, nurses and family members doing their level best assisting others to live the fullest and richest lives possible right up until and including the very end of their lives. As Dr. Atul Gawande would say, the point isn 't to strive for a good death but rather to have the best possible life that is congruent with one 's own values; and to make medical decisions and choices accordingly. By living each day in harmony with one 's goals and values, one is likely to have a good death. Modern medical advances have lengthened the human life span, such that it is now longer than it has been at any point in human history. These advances happened alongside the

The altruistic behaviour of healthcare practitioners may include consistent work or the providence of informal medical advice beyond the boundaries of contracted hours along with the general willingness to move beyond the additional miles in professional activities. There is sufficient evidence that many healthcare practitioners perform their duties beyond their contracted hours but there is a declining trend evident related to the altruism in medicine. This can be expressed within the unwillingness of anaesthetist for accepting a final case on the list due to the time of operation to be run beyond the contracted session limit. The emergence and maintenance of altruism and cooperative social behaviour is found to be a major issue in the biological

Atul Gawande’s book, “Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End,” explores different themes such as, aging, death, and the mishandling of both aging and death by the medical profession’s. This book also addresses what it means to live well near the end of life. It is not just to survive, not just to be safe, not just to stay alive as long as the medical technology allows, but, according to the author it is about what living truly means to an individual. The author describes that the idea of “Being Mortal” developed as he watched his elderly father go through a steep decline in his health and the eventual death. He soon realized that during his medical education and training he was never taught how to help his patients with managing

Mrs. Brown, a patient with ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) should have the option to end her life prematurely or to stay alive and suffer tremendously from a disease that is bound to kill her. Based on the readings and lecture in class, it has become apparent to me that choosing to die by withdrawing medication and choosing to die by taking medication follow very similar reasoning. On the paper Story of Teresa & Terrence - The Established Medical/Legal View, a parallel description of the reasoning that is followed for each case is shown, making clear the logical differences of each patient. In my opinion, the differences in the two cases of Teresa and Terrence are trivial at best. 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.

Euthanasia has constantly been a heated debate amongst commentators, such as the likes of legal academics, medical practitioners and legislators for many years. Hence, the task of this essay is to discuss the different faces minted on both sides of the coin – should physicians and/or loved ones have the right to participate in active euthanasia? In order to do so, the essay will need to explore the arguments for and against legalizing euthanasia, specifically active euthanasia and subsequently provide a stand on whether or not it should be an accepted practice.

When you hear the word death or you hear that someone has died today in the news or on the television I know a lot of people think “Man, I feel sorry for the family that they have to go through that.” or they thank god that it was not them or their family members.” Sadly though people try to push away death and push away the fact that everyone dies at one point in time. This is even truer when they witness their own family member in the hospital with a critical condition that the doctors cannot fix even with modern medicines on the doctor’s side. Another such time would be when a person’s family member is diagnosed with an incurable sickness that is fatal. What would you do in that moment when “death is knocking on their door” or they are about to die? Some people may answer this question by saying keep them alive by using artificial means. I say no. I firmly believe that this is wrong and you are only prolonging their suffering. Euthanasia is what I believe is the right thing to do in these cases if the sick person would rather go that route. People may ask “Why is it the right thing to do?” In order for people to have an answer to that question they must first know what Euthanasia is and how that if you have the mind set of all life is precious like Kant’s exert in the article of euthanasia chapter three of contemporary moral issues you are being selfish.

The word “euthanize” means to bring about a person’s death to relieve them from serious distress. The topic of euthanasia in medicine has evolved since intensive care was first instituted. Before the 1950’s, a simple model was used to determine when someone was dead: the individual was dead when his or her heart stopped beating. In the modern light, the answer to this question isn’t as clear. With advancements in organ transplantation and other medical technologies, the stopping of a beating heart is no longer a definite death sentence. This prolonging of life brings about many ethical dilemmas in the field of medicine. One of the issues is patient autonomy. The practice of euthanasia has been established to put the choice back into the hands of the patient. To better understand euthanasia, there are five different types.