The Tough Choice of Life Support A 10-year-old girl has been in an accident. She is hooked up to many machines as she is unable to breathe on her own. There is also a 70-year-old man who has been on these same machines for many months and has lost much of his brain function. Life support is a controversial topic in which there are many things to put into account. Some things that should be taken into consideration are the wishes of the patient, the wishes of the family, cost, and the possible suffering the patient is enduring. The first fact to know is what life support is and look at current procedures. To have a clear view it is vital to look at the pros and cons and then compare. Pros include a sense of hope and the option of organ donation. Some cons are cost, prolonged suffering, and there is always the question of ethnics. Once all of these things are taken into consideration one can make an informed …show more content…
When it comes to life support there are many debatable topics, such as whether painkillers which may shorten the life of a patient may be given, or whether taking a patient off a machine is euthanasia. In other words the ethnics of taking a patient off life support, The definition of euthanasia is described as such. " Euthanasia consists of an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering."(Manalo, 7). When a doctor takes a patient off the ventilator it is not done to cause death. The situation is the same with the painkillers. Manalo explains this particular issue and says it is an ethical action. The reasoning is that death is not the goal (8). Both of these actions are ethical and not considered euthanasia. When one is taken off life support they are released from their pain. Families who come to this decision can have peace of mind that the one they love is no longer suffering. The feeling of guilt is understood, but what has to be realized is that the person may
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Thus, the patient must resort to using complex technology, machinery, or other’s cooperation to end his or her life. The issue is further complicated because the machinery and technology that would be used by patients to end his or her own life would most likely be produced by the collaboration of doctors. In this sense, it is like the doctor is aiding physically in the ending of a patient’s life (154). This is where it becomes difficult to draw a line between physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. It also follows, that the reasoning we would use to allow physician assisted suicide would also be the same criteria to allow
Hello guys my name is Seung Cheol Choi. I will sum up our team’s opinion and reasons. Our team thinks that physician assisted suicide should be justified for several reasons. Our first speaker, 진솔 gave three reasons why physcician assisted suicide is needed for some patients.
According to Karaim in 2013 “Decisions about sustaining life, allowing it to end or even hastening death are among the most difficult choices terminally ill patients and their families can face” (para 1). Patients going through this have a bountiful number of things going
Families may also take selfish actions by not wanting to continue paying the medical costs to keep the person alive because that money they are spending would eventually become their inheritance. Families and doctors may also feel regret from the assisted death because they may have been able to live through the disease or illness. An example from one of Dr. Jack Kevorkian's patients proved that a wrong diagnosis could make the use of euthanasia a huge mistake. One of his patients had “committed suicide” with his assistance, because she was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. It was later discovered after an autopsy was completed on the patient, that she in fact did not have Multiple Sclerosis and if she would have had a second opinion done, she most likely would have made a completely different choice in dealing with her issue.
The debate over whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be a legal option for dying patients has long been a topic for discussion amongst members of the medical community. There are pros and cons for each argument, however, at the center of this debate is the consideration of patient advocacy and well-being. Although every health care profession centers their profession around providing the best ethical care for the patient, the most important value to consider are the decisions the patient makes for themselves. Currently, patients are given many safeguards such as living wills, a durable power of attorney, and the option for do not resuscitate that act as guidelines for end of life treatment. Physician-assisted suicide
The medical field is filled with opportunities and procedures that are used to help improve a patient’s standard of living and allow them to be as comfortable as possible. Physician assisted suicide (PAS) is a method, if permitted by the government, that can be employed by physicians across the world as a way to ease a patient’s pain and suffering when all else fails. PAS is, “The voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician.”-Medicinenet.com. This procedure would be the patient’s decision and would allow the patient to end their lives in a more peaceful and comfortable way, rather than suffering until the illness takes over completely. Physician assisted suicide should be permitted by the government because it allows patients to end their suffering and to pass with dignity, save their families and the hospital money, and it allows doctors to preserve vital organs to save
Life or Death Who chooses death over life? Sometimes we have to make this decision over a loved one when there is no hope for their recovery. It would be incredibly hard to make this life or death decision on another human being and twice as hard when it is someone we love. The author discusses the argument of this controversial topic of sustaining life at any cost or dying peacefully as an ethical issue. An ethicist, a person who specializes in or writes on ethics, can provide valuable discernment with respect to right and wrong motives or actions.
When a patient is at the end of life it is very important to value the patients self dignity and their decisions at the mere end of their lives. The end of life care is to relieve the weight of the patient 's shoulders physically and mentally. I approve of end of life caring. Basic end of life care is summarized by improving the care of quality of life and dignity of the ill person. The important themes to good ethics of end of life care is a combination of human rights,respect,dignified care,and privacy.
The dying patient no longer has quality of life, they have lost their independence, are lonely, are forced to endure inevitable pain, are publicly humiliated, are suffering immensely, and are forced to watch their loved ones grieve because of them. It is an innate Constitutional Right to choose how to die, since we all will die. There comes a point when the poking and prodding becomes too much, when the patient wants to just die in silence in the loving arms of their
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.
For any family, seeing a loved one on life support and knowing they aren’t going to wake up is extremely difficult. However, the financial tensions that come with long term use of life sustaining technology are just not worth having a family member kept “alive” when recovery is
Tulloch Gail from Edinburgh University Press said that Euthanasia can be categorized in two respects. First, if patients have requests for medical help injection for themselves, it is called Voluntary Euthanasia and did not a request from patients, it called Involuntary Euthanasia. Second, if the doctor injected into the patient died, it is called Active Euthanasia but if the doctor lets the patient died by themselves, it is called Passive Euthanasia (2005). However, Euthanasia is also illegal in some countries.
Introduction With reference to the question posed, it has been suggested that euthanasia may be defined as “the act of intentionally causing the painless death of a sick person”. In other words, it bears the meaning of a “painless, happy or good death” as derived from the ancient Greek language – “eu”, meaning good; and “thanatos”, meaning death. Due to the rapid advancements in medical treatments, patients are capable of being kept “alive” for indefinite periods of time. Hence, in order to distinguish the ancient concept of allowing a patient to die and neglecting them treatment, the medical community has encompassed the idea of drawing a line between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia .
The act of euthanasia, whether active or passive, is heavily obstructed in the medical field. Through medical ethics, the act of passive euthanasia is condoned by withholding treatment and thus, allowing the patient to die. Without any direct contact with the patient, the doctor is not considered as the cause of death. Thus, the medical field views passive euthanasia as of lesser and more permissible value in comparison to active euthanasia. In the statement made by the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association, they perceive this as contrary to mercy killing, as it is, the cessation of the employment of extraordinary means to prolong the life of the body when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent is the decision of the patient and/or his immediate family.