The purpose of this paper is to review ways to reduce the cost of health care. This paper will…
Medical malpractice is when a doctor or another medical professional, such as a nurse or technician, does something or does not do something that causes an injury, harm or death to a patient. In the U.S., experts estimate that about seven in every 1,000 newborns suffer a significant, traumatic birth injury each year due to medical malpractice. Those injuries include, but are not limited to, autism, cerebral palsy, as well as Erb's palsy. According to Donald H. Beskind, a professor at Duke University School of Law, juries are typically influenced by three main factors when deliberating on malpractice cases: the degree to which it is clear who was at fault for the negligence, what money would do to improve the plaintiffs' quality of life, and…
The major claim of this editorial, is that legalized doctor-assisted suicide is euthanasia. We are asking for the right to decide though the court system, if an individual’s life is valuable or not. Some may claim we are just hiding or heartless nature and corrupt moral standards to justify our actions.…
Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia is a widely debated and controversial topic in our society. It is believed that the principle of PAS and euthanasia portrays, “merciful acts that deliver terminally ill patients from painful and protracted death” (page 477, column 2). In the paper, “Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Tragic View,” John D. Arras discusses the subject and states that while he agrees with patients making decisions, implementing laws supporting PAS and euthanasia is a huge threat to our social order. However, John D. Arras also concludes that he does not disapprove with the possibility of having a legislative policy in favor of PAS/euthanasia, only if there is “sufficient evidence of reliability of various safeguards” (page 477, column 2).…
Why it is unjust and unmoral to approve of medical assistants in the pursuit of death, such as suicide if the patients ask for such help? There are two side to every argument, there are some people that believe that is is morally ethical to receive PAS (Physician-Assisted Suicide). Then, of course there’s the opposing side to the debate in which this paper will cover and that side is :The medical practice is PAS is unjust, unmoral and shouldn’t be legalized for the fact the the will of life out powers a moment of misery.…
Supporters of assisted suicide believe that this act benefit terminally ill patients by relieving their suffering. This is probably one of the reasons why Netherlands court determined that a physician is allowed to prevent severe and irreversible suffering, even if it reduces patient’s life (Bosshard et al, 2002). The act of assisted suicide or active euthanasia is allowed in Netherlands, Switzerland and Oregon under different conditions and legislations. The situation can be seen differently in places, where by moral and legal discourse; assisted suicide is interpreted as the freedom or right of the individual as in Switzerland and some states of US. From the ethical perspective, patient’s choice of suicide represents an expression of self- determination and while exercising self- determination people take responsibility of their lives and for the kind of person they become. They have a right to refuse the life- sustaining treatment if they don’t want to suffer anymore and according to law, physicians must respect their decisions to forgo life- sustaining treatment that are capable of making their end of life decisions. By refusing life- sustaining treatment, terminally ill people know that they are going to die soon and in order to avoid suffering or pain they ask physicians for assistance to end their…
Many different organizations like the World Health Organization or WHO, are concerned that the nature of the physician - patient relationship will be irrevocably altered for the worse if physicians are given a license to “kill”. (Young). However, advocates for physician assisted suicide like Margaret Battin will argue that physicians whom alone society has entrusted custody of the means of ensuring a good death, have a positive duty to help terminally ill patients in intractable pain who wish to die, which is a duty grounded in the bioethical principles of beneficence and non-malfeasance (Young).…
I’m at the age in my life where I have seen my family members suffer with extreme pain from a terminal debilitating illness. I know they would prefer death at this point rather than life. My mother who died of cancer, talked about dying and would have liked to stop the suffering, but she elected to deal with the excruciating pain. Or do you not know that your body is a temple or the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from GOD? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify GOD in your body. (1 Corinthians 6; 19-20, Bible) I am not for and opposed to the legalization of voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill patients as administered by physicians. If you have the strength to administer a drug to your body when close to death, I’m opposed to involuntary euthanasia also. I love and have the upmost respect for dignity in dying, and I wish that our Continuations laws and GOD’s laws would let us have control over our last dying wishes, but that is not possible. Our physicians take an…
The term euthanasia originated from the Greek word for "good death." It is the act or practice of ending the life of a person either by lethal injection or the deferment of medical treatment (Munson, 2012, p. 578). Many view euthanasia as simply bringing relief by alleviating pain and suffering. Euthanasia has been a long-standing ethical debate for decades in the United States. Active euthanasia is only legal in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland and in the United States in the states of Washington, Oregon and Montana (Angell). Several surveys indicate that roughly two thirds of the American public now support physician-assisted suicide, and more than half the doctors in the United States do too (Angell). Active voluntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia matter because they allow the patient or family to relieve them of pain and suffering, and to die with dignity and respect. In this paper I will argue that it is immoral and unethical to deny a patient the right to die and that active voluntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia should be a legal practice in the United States.…
Euthanasia is a social issue in today’s world because not only does it affect the lives of those who are terminally ill and/or comatose, and the physicians who have been entrusted with their care, but it also affects the patient’s ability to have control over their own life, whether they are aware of this decision or not, which is one of the reasons why euthanasia has become such a controversial issue around the globe. Caddell and Newton (1995) define euthanasia as “any treatment initiated by a physician with the intent of hastening the death of another human being who is terminally ill and in severe pain or distress with the motive of relieving that person from great suffering” (p. 1,672). Even though the concept of great…
For an unaffected, healthy individual, with death painted as a villain by his subconscious, it is easy to raise a gavel against the legalization of assisted suicide. It is easy for this individual to deny the right to end one’s suffering by citing a variety of aged, insignificant arguments like ancient oaths and biased religious teachings, all in defense of the instinct of his subconscious. However, the debate over assisted suicide is greater than this, and must be considered much more deliberately and meticulously. When one considers justice, autonomy, compassion, and all other necessary factors in the modern assisted suicide debate, it is clear that the practice of physician-assisted suicide is merciful and necessary, and must be a provided right to suffering individuals near the…
In her article, “Thank God Hippocrates Was Pagan”, Jennifer Lahl comments that many non-secular arguments against PAS are mostly ignored; however, arguments regarding the fairness of Death with Dignity laws are strong contenders over the debate regarding PAS (40). She questions whether it is right that only those who are terminally ill can legally end their suffering when others cannot since they are not terminal (Lahl 41). Her contention should be acknowledged when considering possible solutions since one of the pro-PAS arguments is that personal autonomy allows for choice. Another article, a critique written by Manne Sjöstrand, Gert Helgesson, Stefan Eriksson, and Niklas Juth, analyzes two anti-PAS points of view (226). Though Sjöstrand et al. do not argue against PAS, their analysis of protesters’ arguments contribute an unbiased overview of justifications the protesters provide regarding their stance (229). One argument considers autonomy to be a prudential value which should not be compromised by actions that prevent future autonomy, such as suicide (Sjöstrand et al. 227). The other, referred to as the Kantian argument, claims that suicide undermines the value of one’s person (Sjöstrand et al. 228). Where supporters of PAS believe personal autonomy grants patients the freedom the commit suicide, protesters believe the same personal autonomy should be…
Some say that doctors main priority should be to help a patient and make sure they get better, not help them end their life. “They rightly seek to eliminate disease and alleviate pain and suffering. They may not, however, seek to eliminate the patient. Allowing doctors to assist in killing threatens to fundamentally corrupt the defining goal of the profession of medicine” (Anderson). While this article focuses on the cons of allowing PAS, it does not necessarily go against the idea of doctors helping their patients, because by allowing them this end of life option they are alleviating pain and suffering to their patients. And doctors are not allowed to offer PAS to any of their patients, so they are not forcing it upon them as an option, the patient must go to them and specifically request it in order to be administered the drugs. “Patients can refuse or doctors can withhold particular treatments that are useless or causing more harm than good. But in deciding that a treatment is useless, we must not decide that a patient is worthless” (Anderson). Patient happiness and health should always be a top priority, and sometimes that means stretching the limitations of the doctor code of conduct to get their patients what they really want, which could in some cases be…
Many have questioned the right of physicians to assist someone in dying, when they have taken an oath to save lives instead, but “60% [of physicians] agreed that physician-assisted suicide should be legal…” (Gupta 4). In addition to that, a doctor’s job is to treat a patient with every available technology and medical advancement available, and this includes euthanasia in that pivotal moment when nothing else can be done to extend the patient’s life. Many argue that PAS is “playing God” with human life, but this argument does not hold up because one could just as well argue that keeping a terminally ill patient alive would be doing the exact same. Most people that say this simply do not understand the need of a human to die with dignity and ease.…
Doctors’ jobs are to keep people healthy and lively. Their goal is for their patients to be in the best states they can be in. Doctors can do multiple types of procedures and surgeries. One of these procedures is euthanasia, assisted suicide. Euthanasia is controversial topic, but in order for it to happen there must be consent. In Nazi Germany, “euthanasia” was a way of hiding the truth of killings. Medical professionals who “euthanized” thousands of people with disabilities in Nazi Germany are guilty of murder because the patients did not consent, “following orders” is not a defense, and they violated the hippocratic oath.…