David Reef's Swimming With The Sea Of Death

"Johns Hopkins patient safety experts have calculated that more than 250,000 deaths per year are due to medical error…" (John Hopkins Medicine). This soaring number has caused medical errors to become the third leading cause of death in the United States. For many people, medicine seems foreign and unknown. People who have lost loved ones due to medical error desperately look for a reason, and many times that blame falls upon doctors. Media has put a negative connotation on doctors as well, causing their reputation to plummet whenever a hospital procedure turns badly. A renown surgeon and author, Atul Gawande, uses his knowledge and experience to give people a new perspective on medicine. In the article "When Doctors Make Mistakes," Gawande uses rhetorical appeals: ethos, pathos, and logos to prove the need for a change in the medical systems and procedures. He analyzes how the public looks at doctors, giving a new perspective to enlighten the reader that even the best doctors can make mistakes.

All too often in regards to medical treatment, physicians are taught everything known about the scientific approaches to disease but still fail to realize the important details of how the disease impacts the individual. Many physicians do not show empathy to their patients and instead just focus on the current diagnosis and the probable outcome. This creates a divide between patient and provider and can even lead to negative feelings of the patient that far outweigh the diagnosis itself. A feeling of hopelessness and despair may accompany the empty feeling that comes with failing to explore the patient’s perspective on care. In this essay, Parrish states,

In the article “Doctors Should Stop Treatment That Is Futile,” Kevin T. Keith argues that doctors should stop giving useless treatments to patients that won’t get any better. His audience is the healthcare network and the families of patients and he uses a serious tone to get their attention. Kevins purpose is to persuade doctors into stopping ineffective treatments. He uses ethos, pathos, and logos so support his claim.

Writing DA Revision: Doctors Should Stop Treatment That Is Futile In the adaptation, Doctors Should Stop Treatment That Is Futile author Kevin T. Keith discusses how continuing treatment can affect patients. Keith’s purpose is to persuade his audience that doctors should stop treatment that it futile. He adopts a serious and heart wrenching tone in order to captivate the healthcare network and terminally ill patients families. Keith build an argument using pathos, ethos, and logos.

The Dying of the Light is an article by Dr. Craig Bowron that captures the controversy surrounding the role of medication in prolonging life. The author describes that many medical advancements have become a burden to particularly elderly patients who in most instances are ready to embrace the reality of death. Dr. Bowron believes that dying in these modern times has become a tiring and unnatural process. “Everyone wants to grow old and die in his or her sleep, but the truth is most of us will die in pieces,” Bowron notes (Bowron). The article does not advocate for euthanasia or the management of health care costs due to terminal or chronic illness. Bowron faults humanity for not embracing life and death with dignity as it was in the past.

ADHD, defiance disorder, pregnancy, these are just few of the things medicalized in the West (Davies 1995). With the rising prestige of Doctors in the 19th century, came a widening of the gap of knowledge between Doctors and the general population (Davies 1995). Doctors have kept a sort of lock on medical knowledge, enabling them to medicalize all sorts of “issues” aided by the idea of the medical mystique. But with the emergence of medicalization and cures that are being searched for by Doctors, a new problem has arisen. This fixation on curing illnesses has led to Doctors viewing patients as experiments and not as human beings, this is seen especially in technologically advanced societies as exemplified in the movie Wit. In addition to this new problem, there are clear establishments of hierarchy between medical professionals such as Doctors and nurses as well as the emotional detachments with the patients which can lead to patients feeling left out and alone.

The dilemma for ethics committees brought up by the story of Patrick is a question of how much is too much. As technologies in the medical field continue to advance, people can live substantially longer lives, but are they lives worth living? Some people, like Patrick, don’t think being paralyzed is a quality of life worth living. Others, like Armando, refuse to be made DNR and cling to life even if it consists of communicating by blinking of the eye. The questions raised in this book are awful decisions that nobody should ever have to make. Whatever the committees and doctors choose to do can keep patients alive and allow them to have a low quality of live, be in constant pain and be a burden to society, or keep a terminally ill patient comfortable until he or she has said their good-byes and let nature take its course.

Although they are surrounded by healthcare providers who are tasked with saving their lives, they are not in a place where they feel comfortable. The author’s purpose is to send a message to the American society that they should be doing the opposite of putting the elderly in the hospitals and nursing homes, and instead take care of them. In the twenty-first century, medicine “take[s] that small child running through the yard, being chased by her brother with a grasshopper on his finger, and imprison her in a shell that does not come close to radiating the life of what she once had” (Profeta). The elderly are forcibly being placed in hospitals and nursing homes by their families, who do not want to take care of them. The memory shows the patient’s childhood of when she was full of joy, and all of that was taken away when she was put in a healthcare facility. They are now trapped in a place where they do not want to be in with physicians who do value their well-being, and rely on the technology of medicine to save them, but do not value their wishes to end their own

It was a beautiful, sunny day in Puerto Rico where my family and I were taking a vacation that spring. As I lay on my dad’s colorful bed in the small pink villa on the water, I find it hard to enjoy the view that comes from the balcony and the salty smell of the light blue ocean. The villa resides on a rocky cliff where the rippling ocean waves smash onto the rocks below. The waves, which usually relax me, are insignificant. I see colorful houses that run along the water for miles just like ours. In the corner of my eye I see the infinity pool that looks out onto the crystal clear water. Something else is on my mind. Something not even the alluring scenery could take my mind off of-death. One month earlier, I lost my mom to a vicious disease called cancer. Its evilness left my family and I broken and sick at heart. When I look back now to that vacation, I think nothing other than sadness and mourning. Maybe it was too soon to take a vacation, I thought. My dad walks into his room and sits next to me on his bed.

Francis Bacon once said, “I do not believe that any man fears to be dead, but only the stroke of death.” In other words, people are not afraid to die. Rather, they are afraid of the way in which they are going to die. Today, four centuries of medical progress later, Bacon’s words are truer than ever. Medical advances have allowed physicians to prolong the lives of their patients, or maybe it would be better to say, to prolong their deaths. People are made to live too long in ways they would not choose: dependent upon machines, lying in comas, and suffering unbearable pain. Bacon’s “stroke of death” has become the “stretch of death,” giving people all that much more to fear.

He acknowledges that although modern medicine has an incredible ability to prolong life, some treatments can ultimately destroy a person’s ability to relate to others, making their last days not only pain-filled, but also meaningless. Sprong asserts that the distinction between passive and active euthanasia are meaningless with the advances in modern medicine. As decisions by medical personnel and family members to remove patients from life support become more routine, many people want assurances that a patient has some say in their destiny. Many want the right to choose to die with their faculties intact and in circumstances of their choice rather than as a “breathing cadaver” with no human dignity. Another factor Spong points out is the cost of terminal care. He states that although the value of life cannot be measured by expenses, it ought to be something we take into account. He states that when a patient is aware of their condition and comes to terms with their terminal illness and the pain and expenses that come along with it, it is ultimately their decision as to whether or not they want to prolong their life. The dangers of allowing assisted suicide are acknowledged by Spong; however, he believes that society can come up with solutions to prohibit improper decisions on euthanasia while still allowing freedom of choice. As

Suffering is a constant companion of humans today; people experience it every day, whether it be emotional or physical, internal or external. Living with a terminal illness is also living with suffering, both because of the physical pain that is felt, and also the emotional blows the patient experiences every day. A terminally ill patient has a monumental part of their life taken from them. Few aspects of life still remain in their control, because of doctors, family members, and the illness itself. However, there is a practice that places a final decision, the right to choose the circumstances of death, with the patient. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS), or physician

Imagine living with a terminal illness that causes immense pain and suffering. It’s likely that many of us have not given it much thought. It’s much easier to believe that it won’t happen to us. The reality, however, is that people are diagnosed with these terrible illnesses every day. So, what options do patients have? For many years’, members of the medical community have discussed the practice of physician assisted suicide. This would allow terminally ill patients, many of whom have cancer, to make the difficult decision to end their lives peacefully. Doctors are able to simply write their patient a prescription, designed to end a person’s life in a non-painful way. Doctors and medical personnel have struggled with this topic, exploring the various consequences and benefits that come with making assisted suicide legal. Currently, physician assisted suicide has been made legal across a handful of states in the U.S; however, many people continue to question the ethicality of this practice. There are many different arguments to explore for and against physician assisted suicide. Some believe that physician assisted suicide will lead to involuntary euthanasia, while others say patients should have the choice to live or die. While each individual conviction may seem vastly different, they do share something in common: Their concern for the well-being of others.

Keeping a person alive by excessive treatment might devastate the family and make the dying suffer tremendously in the end. “Advance medical technology that seems to one person a godsend, extending life, may seem to another a curse that only prolong dying. Dignity can be devalued amid technology focused solely on the biological organism.”

Imagine you are injured or sick and have sought a doctor’s help. Although you trusted your doctor, something, something seemingly very in control of the doctor, went wrong. You are angry and confused, but also think of the commonality of medical malpractice. So, why do doctors, who are supposed to help, harm? Though many flaws influence it, malpractice can be, and often is unintentional. Most doctors aren’t trained to harm their patients. Inexperience and lack of medical discovery led to unintentional suffering of the patient. Personal flaws, like lack of willingness to abandon previous medical methods and shortcomings in communication also harm patients. Further reasons why doctors harm are socio-medical understandings that breed hate, prejudices stemming from a society’s belief about certain people, such as the medical practice under the Nazi regime. Additionally, displayed in the case of Ignác Semmelweis, judgement of one to oneself can be detrimental to any progress one’s ideas could make. We will examine these concepts through Jerome Groopman’s “Flesh-and-Blood Decision Making”, Sherwin Nuland’s The Doctors’ Plague and Barbara Bachrach’s “In the Name of Public Health”. Those who practice medicine are, unfortunately, unfree from the imperfections that plague all of humanity. Through these intimate and varied faults, doctors do harm.