Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues in health care
Ethics in health and social care
Ethical issues in health care
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues in health care
Ethics in health and social care
Ethical issues in health care
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
This woman clearly demonstrated full autonomy and foresight during her decision to inquire about physician-assisted suicide. Based on the facts there is no indication she was not competent and of sound mind as she met all state requirements to request assisted suicide. Her statement of spiritual ties also leads us to conclude she has already evaluated the possible “consequence” of her death that may or may not apply to her religious views. Consulting her doctor about dying on her own terms demonstrates voluntary active euthanasia, which involves a social decision between two moral agents. In this situation, one being the doctor, and the other the patient.
When taking an oath to be a pharmacist, an EMT, or a physician, one takes an oath to serve humanity. Although there is no common law, each individual profession’s code of ethics has a similar purpose, which is to act as a guideline on the professional relationships between colleagues, patients, and others served. The code of ethics is a standard for all individuals in the profession, however there are instances where a person’s individual beliefs may be of conflict, and prevent the adherence of such guidelines. Although the rights of these individuals may be protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), there is a responsibility as a medical professional to assist the patients, whether it be directly or indirectly. As health
Gill argues that keeping a person healthy cannot be a physician’s only moral duty because in cases of terminal ill patients, they can no longer be treated or healed (372). If a physician’s only duty were to heal patients then they would not tend to the terminally ill because there would be nothing else that they could do, which is something that most people would find to be morally wrong (Gill, 373). No one would be okay with a doctor not helping a person at all who has received a terminal sentence. So instead of promoting health in this case, the physicians must find a way to reduce the suffering of the patient. This means that the physician should be able to reduce the suffering in the way that the patient asks for.
The ethical principle of autonomy provides for respect for the patient’s autonomy to make decisions and choices concerning their life and death. Respecting the patient’s autonomy goes against the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. There also exists the issue of religious beliefs the patient, family, or the caretaker holds, with which the caretaker has to grapple. The caretaker thus faces issues of fidelity to patient welfare by not abandoning the patient or their family, compassionate provision of pain relief methods, and the moral precept to neither hasten death nor prolong life.
In the documentary, Bill Moyers talks to three terminally ill patients, their families, and their doctors about the concerns with physician-assisted suicide (PAS). PAS allows a terminally ill patient to hasten an inevitable and unavoidable death through a lethal dose. The patients considered PAS in order to end their prolonged suffering. The legal role of advance directives in end of life issues allows a patient to specify how he wishes to be treated by a healthcare provider during a progressively weakened state. Advance directives may provide patients with freedom to choose end of life treatment, but moral and religious implications, the ethical battle between a physician’s duty to care and inner-conscious, and state laws pose threats to PAS.
Their argument is that the medical practice of physician-assisted death is unethical because it violates the bioethical principle of nonmaleficence, which refers to the obligation of the physician to not cause needless harm. Physician-assisted death is not causing needless harm because the patient themselves is requesting the death-dealing medication and taking them, or not taking them, when, and if, they feel ready to die. It would be needless harm if the physician in question actively euthanatized the patient by administering the death-dealing medications without the patient’s consent. However, from a legal standpoint, physician-assisted death does not include active euthanasia, which is illegal in all fifty states; it simply requires the physician to provide the mentally competent patient with the information they asked for regarding the process and a prescription for the death dealing medication. The physician is not causing needless harm to a terminally ill patient who wishes to die mercifully on their own time instead of six months down the line in possible pain and suffering.
Physician assisted suicide, although legal in some states, should remain illegal because it goes against religious and moral beliefs. “In physician assisted suicide, the physician provides the necessary means or information and the patient performs the act” (Endlink). Supporters of assisted-suicide laws believe that mentally competent people who are in misery and have no chance of long-term survival, should have the right to die if and when they choose. I agree that people should have the right to refuse life-saving treatments, written in the patient bill of rights.
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
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.
The primary motivation that has led me to pursue an advanced degree in bioethics at Columbia University is the direct applicability the field has to my interests in medicine. Today, the physician needs to contend with an increasingly pluralistic and multicultural society that can create pressure to compel him or her to accommodate patients ' diverse values. Each person and each physician who come together in the medical relationship have expectations, hopes, and needs. Only after these are understood and respected can appropriate technical measures be applied. My decision to apply to Columbia University is based on the belief that this program provides the optimal environment for me to investigate ethics as it pertains to medicine to prepare myself for the ethical requirements of a physician.
The Right to Die 1) Introduction a) Thesis statement: Physician assisted suicide offers patients a choice of getting out of their pain and misery, presents a way to help those who are already dead mentally because of how much a disease has taken over them, proves to be a great option in many states its legal in, and puts the family at ease knowing their love one is out of pain. i) The use of physician assisted death is used in many different countries and some states. ii) Many people who chose this option are fighting a terminal illness.
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.
Ethical Issues in Healthcare There are many ethical issues facing health care at any time and it is impossible to say definitively which is the most pressing or the most important. Health care professionals are expected to base their practice on a set of ethical principles, including truthfulness, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and confidentiality. Ethical issues can arise, however, when a l professional is called upon to act in opposition to personal values or in cases where the values of patient, health care worker, and sponsoring institution conflict. The following issues are presented in no order. Neonatal Ethics Neonates are babies within their first twenty-eight days of life.
THE EUTHANASIA CONTROVERSY Summary Euthanasia has constantly been a heated debate amongst commentators, such as the likes of legal academics, medical practitioners and legislators for many years. Hence, the task of this essay is to discuss the different faces minted on both sides of the coin – should physicians and/or loved ones have the right to participate in active euthanasia? In order to do so, the essay will need to explore the arguments for and against legalizing euthanasia, specifically active euthanasia and subsequently provide a stand on whether or not it should be an accepted practice.
All healthcare providers follow the Hippocratic Oath that has been used for centuries to set out guidelines for our doctors and nurses and in the original version it states “I will not give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect”. In the modern version it states “Above all, I must not play God”. Just in these two sentences all caretakers partaking in this practice have directly broken their promise. Also religion and the role of God is completely taken advantage of when the patient decides to end their life themselves. Julia Angelotti’s views concor with mine when she says that breaking the Hippocratic oath is “immoral” and “probably illegal” (Angelotti).