Arguments Against The End Of Life Choices For Patients
In the health care field, many things can be seen as ethically challenging. Many times, the choice for patients at the end of life care have asked for ways in which they can end their life and stop the suffering. A look at the differing opinions on each side of this debate shows why there is no clear and concise decision when it comes to the ethical issues that are related to the end of life choices for patients.
Arguments against the right to die legally include, but are not limited to: the availability of palliative care that can help relieve a patient’s pain and suffering, choosing to end life could demean the value of human life all together, elderly sometimes do not have the mental capability to make a choice, and ending a life due to the cost of care would put a price on a human life.
Palliative care is sympathetic care to keep the patient as comfortable as possible and is the last available care to the patient who is suffering from an incurable illness or disease. It has been argued that palliative care could decrease in use if the right to die becomes more prevalent. Ensuring that all patients have been …show more content…
informed of all the options available that could reduce suffering and die with dignity is very important, not only for the patient, but also for any caregivers or social workers.
The surmounting in bills associated with hospital stays, labs, imaging, and hospice care could make the right to die more desirable for the patient that has limited funds available or family that will inherit the costs associated with end of life care.
Religion plays a big part in the arguments against the right to die even if it is done medically.
Religious people believe that dying with dignity is a beautified term for suicide and killing oneself does not allow for ascension into heaven. Christians believe that all life is given by God and that birth and death are parts of life’s process in which He created. They argue that we should respect these processes. Additionally, no human being has the right or authority to take the life of another person, even if he wants to die. Proposing to end a life asks someone else to judge the person as being incurable. Dying is a process that everyone goes through and the religious people believe that this is the most spiritual time a person has. Not only does the church regard committing suicide morally wrong, but also helping someone to commit
suicide.
Advances in health care have been helped by technology. These advances have helped to create an issue for physicians and patients when it comes to end of life care. Often faced with difficult choices, using these advances in an effort to increase life expectancy, suffering and the dying process may be inadvertently prolonged, rather than heal and recover. Patients with advanced illnesses require a physician and the community or family to discover other ways to decrease the pain and suffering that comes from a terminal illness. This becomes an issue of medical ethics, making moral choices that are acceptable with respect to end of life care.
Recently, in our most recent election, the people of Colorado decided to support the right to die by the aid of medicine. Of course, there are stipulations to the Colorado End-Of-Life Options Act. Colorado’s End-Of-Life Options Act was modeled after Oregon’s medical aid in dying law. Oregon’s law has been in effect since 1997 and was the first state to authorize such a law. Colorado’s stipulations on eligibility was presented in such a way that the proposition passed with 65% of the voters saying yes. Included in the strict eligibility criteria are requirements such as, the patient must be 18 years of age or older, be diagnosed with a terminal illness-confirmed by a second opinion and in the final stages with a prognosis of 6 months or less to live, be deemed mentally capable, and must administer the medication himself.
The person requesting aid in dying must be 18 years old or older because the person must be able to give informed consent legally. It is also a voluntary procedure; a parent or guardian cannot sign a release or give consent for a minor. This is also the case with other medical procedures, such as bone marrow harvesting for transplantation.
The diagnosis of a terminal illness is required not by one doctor, but by two independent physicians. The patient’s prognosis must be 6 months or less to qualify for the aid. The patient must also have a mental health evaluation by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist if either the attending or consulting physical believes the individual may not be mentally capable of making an informed decision. The physician would be unable to write the prescription for the medication until confirmation of mental capacity was communicated by the psychiatrist or psychologist. This enables the physician to feel comfortable with his decision to aid the patient.
These requirements remove most of the issues associated with the arguments against supporting the right to die with dignity. The proposition also included specifications on civil and criminal liability for the physician issuing the medication. It also protects the physician and removes the ability of the usage of words such as assisted suicide, euthanasia, mercy killing, elder abuse, suicide, and homicide from being used against the physician or the patient choosing to utilize aid in dying medication.
With the numerous stipulations in place, the worry over people misusing aid in dying is almost a moot point. Worries about choosing to die due to economic issues is removed. Only the patients that meet all of the requirements set forth by the Colorado End-Of-Life Options Act will be able to utilize the aid and once given the aid the patient can decide on when the right time to die is for him.
I voted to pass this proposition. Too many times I have seen our patients with certain types of cancer, like pancreatic cancer, fail to thrive so quickly. They are in pain and suffering and the palliative care is just not enough. Keeping a patient comfortable by pushing drugs to dull the pain also dull the mind. Most people don’t make their pets suffer and the pet is euthanized humanely. Why would we treat our terminally ill patients worse than we treat our animals? I would not and that is why I support Colorado’s End-Of-Life Options Act.
Arguments against the right to die legally include, but are not limited to: the availability of palliative care that can help relieve a patient’s pain and suffering, choosing to end life could demean the value of human life all together, elderly sometimes do not have the mental capability to make a choice, and ending a life due to the cost of care would put a price on a human life.
Palliative care is sympathetic care to keep the patient as comfortable as possible and is the last available care to the patient who is suffering from an incurable illness or disease. It has been argued that palliative care could decrease in use if the right to die becomes more prevalent. Ensuring that all patients have been …show more content…
informed of all the options available that could reduce suffering and die with dignity is very important, not only for the patient, but also for any caregivers or social workers.
The surmounting in bills associated with hospital stays, labs, imaging, and hospice care could make the right to die more desirable for the patient that has limited funds available or family that will inherit the costs associated with end of life care.
Religion plays a big part in the arguments against the right to die even if it is done medically.
Religious people believe that dying with dignity is a beautified term for suicide and killing oneself does not allow for ascension into heaven. Christians believe that all life is given by God and that birth and death are parts of life’s process in which He created. They argue that we should respect these processes. Additionally, no human being has the right or authority to take the life of another person, even if he wants to die. Proposing to end a life asks someone else to judge the person as being incurable. Dying is a process that everyone goes through and the religious people believe that this is the most spiritual time a person has. Not only does the church regard committing suicide morally wrong, but also helping someone to commit
suicide.
Advances in health care have been helped by technology. These advances have helped to create an issue for physicians and patients when it comes to end of life care. Often faced with difficult choices, using these advances in an effort to increase life expectancy, suffering and the dying process may be inadvertently prolonged, rather than heal and recover. Patients with advanced illnesses require a physician and the community or family to discover other ways to decrease the pain and suffering that comes from a terminal illness. This becomes an issue of medical ethics, making moral choices that are acceptable with respect to end of life care.
Recently, in our most recent election, the people of Colorado decided to support the right to die by the aid of medicine. Of course, there are stipulations to the Colorado End-Of-Life Options Act. Colorado’s End-Of-Life Options Act was modeled after Oregon’s medical aid in dying law. Oregon’s law has been in effect since 1997 and was the first state to authorize such a law. Colorado’s stipulations on eligibility was presented in such a way that the proposition passed with 65% of the voters saying yes. Included in the strict eligibility criteria are requirements such as, the patient must be 18 years of age or older, be diagnosed with a terminal illness-confirmed by a second opinion and in the final stages with a prognosis of 6 months or less to live, be deemed mentally capable, and must administer the medication himself.
The person requesting aid in dying must be 18 years old or older because the person must be able to give informed consent legally. It is also a voluntary procedure; a parent or guardian cannot sign a release or give consent for a minor. This is also the case with other medical procedures, such as bone marrow harvesting for transplantation.
The diagnosis of a terminal illness is required not by one doctor, but by two independent physicians. The patient’s prognosis must be 6 months or less to qualify for the aid. The patient must also have a mental health evaluation by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist if either the attending or consulting physical believes the individual may not be mentally capable of making an informed decision. The physician would be unable to write the prescription for the medication until confirmation of mental capacity was communicated by the psychiatrist or psychologist. This enables the physician to feel comfortable with his decision to aid the patient.
These requirements remove most of the issues associated with the arguments against supporting the right to die with dignity. The proposition also included specifications on civil and criminal liability for the physician issuing the medication. It also protects the physician and removes the ability of the usage of words such as assisted suicide, euthanasia, mercy killing, elder abuse, suicide, and homicide from being used against the physician or the patient choosing to utilize aid in dying medication.
With the numerous stipulations in place, the worry over people misusing aid in dying is almost a moot point. Worries about choosing to die due to economic issues is removed. Only the patients that meet all of the requirements set forth by the Colorado End-Of-Life Options Act will be able to utilize the aid and once given the aid the patient can decide on when the right time to die is for him.
I voted to pass this proposition. Too many times I have seen our patients with certain types of cancer, like pancreatic cancer, fail to thrive so quickly. They are in pain and suffering and the palliative care is just not enough. Keeping a patient comfortable by pushing drugs to dull the pain also dull the mind. Most people don’t make their pets suffer and the pet is euthanized humanely. Why would we treat our terminally ill patients worse than we treat our animals? I would not and that is why I support Colorado’s End-Of-Life Options Act.