ipl-logo

Why We Should Allow Doctors Try To Save Patients

1265 Words6 Pages

Should doctors always try to save patients, or should they respect the patients’ ultimate decision even if it means death as in euthanasia? Everybody knows that there are many troubling problems in medical care. Medical cure issues have become a kind of public debate in time. One of the most significant parts of those problems in therapy is patient's will against doctor's decisions. People always arguing that subject while deciding somebody's who is in bad health treatment process. This process varies from patient to patient. Some patients refuse treatment while others accept treatment. At this process people argue that should doctors always try in order to save patients, or should they respect the patients'? All these arguable questions can be …show more content…

Given those factors, those questions’ answer is doctors should try to save patients and they shouldn’t respect patients’ ultimate decision, like euthanasia because of the sociological factors and the state’s view. The first considerable reason why doctors always try to cure patients due to the sociological factors. Above all, there are lots of various thought in every society. Some people in society have more liberal thoughts and some are more conservative. Religion can also be seen as the main source of this conservatism. Many things are forbidden in these societies. Euthanasia is one of these. This is because euthanasia is seen as suicide and it is forbidden to the seminary religions, such as Islam, Judaism, Christianism. In these beliefs ‘’Withholding or withdrawing of artificial nutrition is not allowed even if there is no prospect of recovery.’’ (Bülow&Sprung&Reinhart, 2008, p.425) It means that doctors have to try to cure diseased person even if he’ll die. In such a case, both the patient and relatives will

Show More
Related
1953 Words | 8 Pages

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.

Read More
622 Words | 3 Pages

Should the patient be able to make medical decisions or should the doctors? Whose body is it anyway? Which judgement call should be made, the practical or the personal belief? The author, Atul Gawande, proposes these questions in the book, Complications: A Surgeon’s Notes on an Imperfect Science.

Read More
590 Words | 3 Pages

Atul Gawande in his article “Whose body is it, anyway?” introduced couple of cases, which discussed a controversial topic, doctors dealing with patients and making important medical decisions. These are difficult decisions in which people might have life or death choices. Who should make the important decisions, patients or doctors? Patients don’t usually know what is better for their health and while making their decisions, they might ignore or don’t know the possible side effects and consequences of these decisions.

Read More
743 Words | 3 Pages

Giving patients treatment so they can die upon their wishes, not the doctors, would be considered Utilitarian ethical principles. When the patient has

Read More
1347 Words | 6 Pages

’s turn to die. I don’t believe that we should have the power to decide one’s fate. An important part to recognize that is not talked a lot about in this topic is that if euthanasia and assisted suicide is illegal, then doctors won’t have the pressure and burden of having to take someone’s life, even if the person wanted it. These people are educated to be doctors, not killers. They are meant to use everything in their power to save patients, not take away their life.

Read More
791 Words | 4 Pages

Medicine has to be ever changing to deal with the health issues that arise the world's medical system is not perfect. People all over the world suffer from diseases and are terminally ill. Instead of going through treatments that might work or waiting for a cure that may not come before they die. People choose to take matters into their own hands and decide to die with help of a physician, but many ill patients and doctors are criminalized for actions such as these. The drawbacks and benefits of physician assisted suicide should be examined and what it would take to decriminalize it.

Read More
509 Words | 3 Pages

Doctors control the means, drugs that end life painlessly” (Jaret). Doctors hold the key, to end patients suffering it should be legal for doctors to help patients and patients should also have the right to make a decision that has to do with ending their life. According to Issues and Controversies “The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” (“Right to Die”). Patients have the right as citizens to have a say in the way they want to have a death on their own terms. Nobody should be withholding the right to die from a patient who is mentally competent and terminally ill (“Right to

Read More
781 Words | 4 Pages

Physician-assisted Suicide and Ethical Principles The responsibility a physician has to his patients and society is established by medical ethics and is at a greater degree than the law (Sulmasy & Mueller, 2017). The ethical principles, beneficence, autonomy, nonmaleficence, and promotion of fairness and social justice, are the basis for a physician’s duties to his patients. He is a member of a profession with ethical obligations; he is not just a service provider, but a moral advocate. Both medical ethics and the law support the patient’s right to refuse therapy.

Read More
1105 Words | 5 Pages

In response to this argument, the medical field is quickly evolving and it is important to reconsider the ideas behind medicine. Yes, in a way a doctor’s role is to promote health but it is also to keep the patients best interest in mind at all times and avoid harm. If the patient has no desire to be alive and would

Read More
414 Words | 2 Pages

They tend to be fairly because they know about medicine to know its limits; they don’t want to die. Surely, eacht doctor has the preparation for death. In the other hand, some patients try to find a method to overcome their illness.

Read More
690 Words | 3 Pages

We know that the role of the doctor is always to save a patient’s live. What if the only way to save save a suffering patient’s life is their death. The highest ethical imperative of doctors should be to provide care in whatever way best serves patients' interests, in accord with each patient's wishes, not with a theoretical commitment to preserve life no matter what the cost in suffering.... The greatest harm we can do is to consign a desperate patient to unbearable suffering—or force the patient to seek out a stranger like Dr. Kevorkian.(2004)

Read More
906 Words | 4 Pages

People often argue that a person should have a mental evaluation before making a decision as severe as physician-assisted suicide. Another argument one could make is from a moral standpoint, but most specifically from their religious beliefs. Most believe that life is the ultimate gift and one should never demoralize this precious gift. Above all, the most important argument one can make is a doctor’s stance against euthanasia. It is believed that physicians should not be involved euthanasia as a doctor’s purpose is to treat, maintain, and promote the patient’s well-being.

Read More
912 Words | 4 Pages

Some feel as if the terminally ill patients would have eventually died from their illnesses and that their physician did not make a choice to heal them. But instead, they hand the decision over to the patient

Read More
840 Words | 4 Pages

People who are involved in these can suffer just as much as the patient. The choices bear on the good of the population, doctors are supposed to help your health, knowledge, and friendships. They are taught to save lives not to take them away. They are taught to act against anything that brings harm towards the person. To end someone’s life even for a better end shows what someone thinks of human life.

Read More
905 Words | 4 Pages

In this paper we look the morals and mores of people and try to determine if we born with a moral compass or if our morals — our sense of what is good or evil — is something which develops and accumulates over time. The author will look at the question whether human beings are innately benign, nefarious, or both at the same time. The age-old question whether people are good, bad or both is something that has kept scholars and philosophers busy for centuries and it even keeps ethics students busy today. If we want to answer the question whether people have a natural born ability of being good or that this is an artistry which has been cultured by society over time, we have to start at the very beginning, with babies.

Read More

More about Why We Should Allow Doctors Try To Save Patients

Related Topics

Open Document