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.
Gress’s position is not morally legitimate, and the ethical principles of nonmaleficence, beneficence, and autonomy render it morally wrong. Paternalism is strongly present in this situation: the patients were not asked whether or not they would like to be informed of the new information that their doctor acquired. Furthermore, Dr. Gress stated that he had “an obligation not to notify them” (Munson 328); however, doctors have a duty to tell even the unfortunate truths to their patients. What Dr. Gress decided was, “on the basis of his own values, that he knows what is best for another person” (Week 2 Ppt Slide 2). Also, he was denying the patients’ autonomy.
A nurse’s job is to make the patient feel comfortable and provide a friendly feel, which is difficult to do if hospitals and other medical facilities rely heavily on assisted suicide. According to the ANA, the procedure opposes “the ethical traditions of the profession”(Clair). The doctors are in a quite different situation. When you look in depth at the operation itself, many professionals imply that the doctor “are accessories of fact to homicide”(Clair). That means the doctor is assisting with the homicide because the patient’s death was only possible if the doctor contributed the needed drugs.
Feldshuh includes Douglas’s description towards the importance of the study to signify the ease of justifying a cause; however it is intentional that Doctor Douglas does not reveal the true purpose of the study to the patients. Douglas has effectively begun dehumanizing the patients, he does not think the patients as being capable of understanding the importance of the study, and the risks associated. No efforts towards discussing the study or treatment are made with the patients, and Nurse Evers by supporting the study begins compromising her oath and her position as a nurse, as indicated by her
Proponents of euthanasia believe that it will do not degrades life for those who are suffering from incurable illness. They should have a choice whether they want to end their live. But in fact, not all of the patient receive euthanasia because of the suffering but other reason reasons like the medical cost and other monetary reasons. A report had discussed that the rising cost of medical care for the elderly had cause some euthanasia become one of the suggestion to solve this crisis. ( report, EPAC, the Economic Planning and Advisory Council).
The theory fails to mention the young adult patient that is dying maybe from auto collision or other incidences that subjected them to the dying stage of their life who may not have thought of making an end of life decision. The situation that put care team in a dilemma and may delay care or prolong needed care than necessary. Ruland and Moore was derived from doctoral theory course in the accumulations of empirical knowledge, clinical practice knowledge and synthesized knowledge which did not address the lower level of educators that are still scared to talk to patients about living will or who is yet to understand how to help a patient in an acute situation with a living will. Miller, B. (2017) states that physicians and nurses report discomfort in discussing end of life care with the patient from other cultures.
The doctor advised Brian that the tissue being used was disease free but was the tissue of donor 58600 who after death Clostridium sordelli bacteria took over his body. Brian Lykins died soon after the surgery. Brian was not the only person who received tissue from donor 58600; others also got sick or died. Some concerns related are that there is no way to regulate human remains without someone trying to make a profit. It started off as a way to advance science and help society but the greed of money took over.
Doc was not supposed to practice medicine but he does and helps the sick people out because he cares about the well-being or others. Based on this we can infer that individuals should go out of their way to help others out. Without Doc’s help, the sick people may have died. This influences the idea that individuals should help others because it would make a difference in the world. Like characterization, emotional appeal can be also used to define the role of the
Dyck’s book, “Life’s Worth: The Case against Assisted Suicide,” details why PAS is unethical. One of Dyck’s first arguments comes from a story in which a patient, who initially requested PAS but later found enjoyment in other things and turned away from PAS. His argument stands in which he says that patient’s wishes can change and that when they find happiness and solace in other things they will understand that PAS is not the way to go (Dyck, 14-15). Dyck also explores the concept of how PAS is not as effective as comfort-only care. The physician has to remain willing to care for and the patient has to remain willing to be cared for and that is a respect for life.
What will the doctors tell the family members of the patient? Something like, “We didn’t try to save his or her life because a machine said he or she wouldn’t make it”? That would be absolutely unheard of and completely unethical and many hospitals would have an insane amount of issues from the family members of those patients. Some may say that it allows a more effective use of limited medical resources, due to the fact that the patient would have to go under expensive procedures even though they most likely will not live. Although, every patient should be treated equally no matter their condition because one may never know that they may actually save a life against all odds, it has happened before.
Having the fear of being mistreated and used for experimentation made the Lacks’ even more upset about Henrietta’s death. They were not educated so when the doctor would say something scientific they would trust every word while not even understanding what he was saying. This part of informed consent was stressed throughout the book because in today’s society most people have enough education to have a general idea what is going on when they are at the hospital about to have a procedure done, making it seem