More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical differences between patient and physician
Ethical differences between patient and physician
Importance of patient's rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
After reading this case I was terribly shocked about the fact that something like this could happen in our medical history. I couldn’t believe how a patient could be neglected so much. Based on the material that we have learned the lack of ethical theory of deontology in Dr. Evan was disturbing. As a doctor Dr. Evan’s role is to care for patients, keep them away from harm and prolong their life. Though in the trial he stated as if he didn’t care.
Accessed 6 May 2018. Gaudin, Anne Marie. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health: To Die or Not to Die: That is the Question - But Who Decides?, 51 La. L. Rev. (1991)
Candace Newmaker, a bright girl trying to find a home until she met her terrible fate of being murdered. One of the worst things you can inflict upon another human, is to steal their lives. People who take another’s life are sentenced harshly. But when it comes to doctors, they receive a free pass. Why should doctors and medical physicians not be as harshly punished compared to others?
The case of Carter vs. Canada is one of triumph for Canadians to question their civil liberties and constitutional privileges to an extent that had not been experienced in the courts history. The decision to abandon the previous law restricting the practice of doctor assisted suicide was justified by the court in the context of those with severe illness as well as a mental disability, in which prohibits their overall wellness. In regards to Life, liberty and security, it comes to a progressive conclusion that both the Supreme Court of Canada and Tina Carter both unilaterally agree that Canadians who are suffering unbearably at the end of life should have the right to choose a dignified and peaceful death. To explicitly regard the constitutional legitimacy of physician-assisted suicide within the charter of rights general limitations, the law currently contradicts the charter.
In the article “Physician-Assisted Death in the United States: Are the Existing “Last Resorts” Enough?” Timothy Quill, advocated for PAD writes, “Patients who are worried about future suffering and wonder what options would be available to them”(20). One example is, people who undergo surgery for various reasons. Everyone knows that there are risks associated with any surgery and there are those who want to know what options are available to them should they become incapacitated in any way. In the article “The Final Decision; Quadriplegic MP Stevenson Fletcher Champions Physician-Assisted Death”, author Andrew Duffy describes how a young man named Steven Fletcher felt after a car accident left him unable to paralyzed from the neck down.
The last argument that this paper will look at is the argument of double effect. In the context of terminal illness physician assisted suicide could instead be seen as a vital form of care for someone who is suffering, instead of the failure of medicine. Physician assisted suicide seems to oppose the pro-life view, but on closer examination, its purpose is instead to relieve suffering in imminently terminal cases where it is thought that no other treatment could reasonably hope to do the same. Even though traditionally the role of the doctor is seen as extending life, that role may also encompass the assistance in PAS.
Is physician-assisted suicide really something that should be considered in the United States or even the world? No matter what your opinion is, Katherine Jean Lopez makes a compelling argument about why it shouldn’t even be considered. Her article Rejecting the Culture of Suicide can make even the most stubborn reader listen to what she has to say about physician-assisted suicide. With her use of ethos, pathos, and logos, Lopez is able to tug at the heartstrings of any reader as well as inform each one about the negative effects of suicide. In this essay I will explore the ways Lopez turns the article into a melting pot of facts, opinions, and real life stories in order to convince the readers that physician-assisted suicide should be illegal everywhere.
The Donald (Dax) Cowart case gave me more of an awareness of how important a patient’s rights are. This case established why listening to the patient is significant and how violating their right to refuse treatment can impact their future. Dax was severely burned and he would have died if he was not treated. The treatments were excruciating and Dax just really wanted to die. Instead of allowing him to refuse treatment and end his life the doctors told him they were going to treat him so he can have a future.
Though, in this paper, I have addressed several points that Dennis Plaisted has presented on why we should not legalize physician assisted suicide due to the issues with autonomy that convince the public that the state does not care enough to preserve the lives of those with less than six months to live. I argued that the limits of who and when an ill patient may be allowed to receive PAS are present for the state to relieve the pain of the ill who wish to have control over their death, and that it is only an alternative option for those patients. I considered a counterargument to my criticism, which argues that the state and doctors shouldn’t allow for PAS, as it gives the impression that the state does not care about the lives of the terminally ill. Just as well, the reputation of doctors as healers would be compromised if they supported this form of treatment. However, I explained that the quality of life is more valuable than forcing someone who is ill to suffer until their natural death.
About Schmidt is an intricate character study of a 66 year old man, Warren Schmidt, who falls into the abyss of retirement and widowhood with denouement for temporality, stability and purpose of life and slowly regaining it back by getting in touch with his inner self. His salvation comes inadvertently, through a one-way series of letters he writes to a disadvantaged orphan in Tanzania. As the movie begins we see saddened Warren Schmidt, sitting in his office chair with files filled with his legacy of business acumen packed and boxed in background. After retirement as an actuary for the Woodman of the World Insurance Company, Schmidt is left with nothing but time on his empty hands.
But in Donald’s case it was the total opposite. He went to the hospital with his mind already made up to die, which goes against what the doctors have being taught to do, and the principle of beneficence. The doctors decided to reject his autonomy because they knew he had an immense possibility of having a happy live and not just simply acting in a paternalistic way. In the end the doctors decisions was the right choice, when Donald stated, “I am enjoying life now, and I’m glad to be alive” (Munson6).
It is believed that once practicing physician-assisted suicides becomes an acceptable concept in society, the next steps will easily be taken toward unethical actions such as involuntary euthanasia. Edmund D. Pellegrino, MD, Professor Emeritus of Medicine and Medical Ethics at Georgetown University claims that our healthcare system is too obsessed with costs and principles of utility. He defies the belief that the slippery slope effect is no more than a prediction, by reminding the outlooks and inclinations of our society. Furthermore, he believes there comes a day that incompetent patients and those in coma won’t be asked for their permission to use euthanasia. The Netherlands is another example of such misuse.
Assisted suicide is a rather controversial issue in contemporary society. When a terminally ill patient formally requests to be euthanized by a board certified physician, an ethical dilemma arises. Can someone ethically end the life of another human being, even if the patient will die in less than six months? Unlike traditional suicide, euthanasia included multiple individuals including the patient, doctor, and witnesses, where each party involved has a set of legal responsibilities. In order to understand this quandary and eventually reach a conclusion, each party involved must have their responsibilities analyzed and the underlying guidelines of moral ethics must be investigated.
A controversial practice that invokes a debate over how beneficial its intentions are is the use of euthanasia. The argument switches between whether or not putting terminally ill patients to death with the assistance of a physician is justifiable and right. Legalizing the practice of euthanasia is a significant topic among many people in society, including doctors and nurses in the medical field, as it forces people to decide where to draw the line between relieving pain and simply killing. While some people see euthanasia as a way to helping a patient by eliminating their pain, it is completely rejected by others who see it as a method of killing.
The Right to Die has been taking effect in many states and is rapidly spreading around the world. Patients who have life threatening conditions usually choose to die quickly with the help of their physicians. Many people question this right because of its inhumane authority. Euthanasia or assisted suicide are done by physicians to end the lives of their patients only in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, New Mexico and soon California that have the Right to Die so that patients don’t have to live with depression, cancer and immobility would rather die quick in peace.
