Cited: Dial, Karla. "Are futility policies good for patients?" PROCON.ORG. Accessed Feb. July 6, 2011
Cited: Dial, Karla. "Are futility policies good for patients?" PROCON.ORG. Accessed Feb. July 6, 2011
The case study goes as such: Mr. Martinez was a seventy-five year old COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) patient. He was in the hospital because of an upper respiratory tract infection. He and his wife had already requested that CPR should not be performed if he required it and a DNR is placed in his charts. While in his room on third floor, being maintained with antibiotics, fluids, and oxygen and seemed to be doing better. However, Mr. Martinez’s oxygen was inadvertently turned up, causing him to go into respiratory failure. This scenario in my opinion causes for drastic measures and I personally feel like his wishes should be overthrown by what the caring physician sees ethically and morally right. The doctor should look at all the circumstances in front of themselves and make an ethical decision. Mr. Martinez was previously being treated and had been improving. Although some may argue that he already has a disease that could be terminal. Looking at the bigger picture of the situation that he was being treated for the upper respiratory infection and he was progressing. I believe he should be transferred to intensive care so that his oxygen level can be monitored and his respiratory failure be treated by a ventilator.…
The morals involved here is the patient’s right to refuse care if she chooses and also the right to die. The moral principles of ethics involved also in this case are: Beneficence- act of doing good, demonstrating kindness, showing compassion, and helping others; Non-maleficence- avoiding the infliction of harm; Justice- the duty to be fair in the distribution of risks and benefits, and; Autonomy- recognizing an individual’s right to make his or her own decisions.…
References: Aronson, D. D., & Matthews, M. (1999, February 8). Symposium: Should health insurers be forced to pay for infertility treatments? Insight on the News, 15(5), 24-27.…
An analysis of Robert Schwartz “Autonomy, Futility, and the Limits of Medicine” reveals that physicians are not required to give patients treatment that has been proven to be effective, and they are not morally obligated to provide treatment that is not in-line with practice of medicine. Schwartz explains although our autonomy is respected, there are limitations on our request.…
Physician assisted suicide is based on an ideal of conscious responsibility and control over one's life. In some circumstances when modern medicine cannot ease the physical and/or psychological suffering of a terminally ill patient, forcibly prolonging life is cruel and unnecessary. In such cases, the doctor does more harm by keeping the patient alive against his wishes than by helping him die. A terminally ill person may not want to live "superficially" with the help of modern medical advances since the quality of his life will dramatically decrease. Physical pain is not the only element of suffering; emotional distress is an equally serious concern for those considering physician-assisted suicide. It should not be the place of anyone other than the patient to determine what constitutes intolerable suffering.…
Everyone has a right to their own opinion when it comes to physician assisted suicide, but what about those patients who are suffering from an incurable type of cancer, or what about the patients that have suffered from a major stroke or even been involved in a major car accident that has left them paralyzed and are unable to care for themselves. Patients who are suffering from an incurable bout with cancer experiences unbearable pain, vomiting, coughing, lack of energy, as well as other debilitating symptoms. Physician assisted suicide occurs when a physician helps someone to end their life rather than a close friend, or a family member. Physician assisted suicide take place when a physician prescribes a drug to their terminally ill patient resulting in that patient’s death. There are many physicians that are against physician assisted suicide because they feel as though it violates the Hippocratic Oath they took, to do no…
Recent cases have drawn attention to the issue of individual autonomy, and what is sometimes referred to as ‘the right to die’. Adult patients who are mentally competent have the right to refuse medical treatment even when that refusal can lead to worsening ill health and even death. This refusal of treatment may only be ignored when statutory law provides for treatment without consent, or a judge makes an order that overrides the patient’s consent. While this is largely accepted when patients are physically and mentally competent, it becomes a complex issue when a person is mentally competent, but due to physical incapacity are in care because they are unable to care for themselves. A person may be mentally competent but due to being a quadriplegic…
This article present a case in which the patient and the family made a decision in favor of resuscitation that ran contrary to the physician’s medical judgement. The author argues that, where a patient request for treatment in conflict with physician’s responsibility to provide what he or she believes to be good medical care, a resort to autonomy alone is insufficient. The principal of autonomy, which allow patient to refuse any procedure or choose among different beneficial treatment, does not allow them to demand nonbeneficial and potentially harmful procedure. This is important because CPR should not be considered an alternative to be offered by physicians in such cases. Instead, the physician should have listened to the patient’s hopes and fears, reassured him that the physician should would continue to be there and provide appropriate therapy, and, if necessary, refer the patient to psychiatric personnel or clergy.…
The simple principles of medical ethics are “to avoid harm”, “to do well”, “the right to act freely”, and “acting fairly towards the patient”. Doctors should try to save patient’s life instead of ending it. They have the responsibility not to kill the trusting patients, but give all their best to secure the life of their patients. Even if the patients are hard to cure, they should still try and not make euthanasia an option. Therefore, doctors do not have the right to decide whether their patients would live or die as long as their patients are alive, there is always a hope for curing. For instance, many European countries are legalizing euthanasia. Unfortunately, not only doctors, but also nurses are favoring euthanasia in the extreme…
Physician assisted dying is a very controversial issue and it is only becoming more controversial with more cases coming to light. Many people believe that assisting a patient in dying goes against the moral code that doctors should follow. Their job is to go to any measures to sustain the life under their care, but what about individuals suffering with no hope of getting better? Wouldn’t doctors then be obligated morally to relieve these individuals of their agony and put them to peace? Considering that, some argue in favor of the sick and believe they deserve a voice and a right to choose how much suffering is enough suffering. Should someone who is suffering from a terminal illness that…
In Acting to Let Someone Die, Andrew McGee critiques the medical ethics view that withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (LST) or life support is an act of killing in contrast to the idea that withdrawing LST is simply an omission rather than an act. He focuses mainly, however, not on whether withdrawing LST is an omission or an act but whether the withdrawal lets the person die or kills them, concluding that providing LST merely postpones death and its withdrawal just lets the person die of the original causes that initiated the LST in the first place. I plan to assess McGee’s discussion of the difference between withholding and withdrawing life-saving treatment, a distinction that he ultimately decides does not exist, and the idea that there…
There’s no point in forcing them to live if the illness has caused the patients to hate their life. Making someone suffer through their own existence is absolutely unnecessary. Their time on this earth should be their decision whether or not to continue the path of living. Given the protection of rights on how to live or die, if a decision is made on physician-assisted suicide, that is a decision entirely made by the patient who is directing the course of their life. The physician should be free of charge.…
Imagine laying in bed, unable to do anything for yourself; your quality of life is slowly diminishing to nothing. Now, imagine having the worst pain imaginable. This is what life is like when having a life threatening disease, like terminal cancer. Terminally ill patients have the most unbearable pain, yet have to die suffering. What if there was an option to end one's life with dignity, to be able to still make a choice while you could? This option is called physician-assisted suicide, and people should have the right to make this type of very difficult decision if ever needed to. It goes against the Hippocratic Oath a physician takes (www.pbs.org); but, this oath is not required for modern medicine schools. As long as a person is of sane…
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…
Is there a certain point in time when it should be legal for a physician to assist a patient with ending their own life? If a competent person is experiencing unbearable pain and suffering that continues after all other options have been tried and failed, shouldn't it be up to that patient to decide when they are ready to end their own life. California, Oregon, Colorado, Vermont, and Washington all agree that it is a patients' right to decide when they are ready to die. If you or a family member had an incurable disease with not much time to live and were suffering from the worst pain in the world, wouldn't you want to be able to make that decision or give your family member that choice? It shouldn't be up to the government to tell you when the right time to die is. This is why we must legalize physician-assisted suicide in every state in America. Give patients the rights they deserve and end patient…