Diploma of Nursing
Teacher’s name- Rachel Gilder
12 May, 2016
Ethical dilemma essay
An ethical dilemma is a difficult situation that usually involves a conflict between moral obligations, in which to obey one would result in disobeying another (Murphy, 1997). Sedation is an ethical dilemma in palliative care because on one side it helps to relieve suffering for patients who are terminally ill and almost at the end of their lives. However, at the same time, sedation is making the patient deprived of certain bioethical principles such as autonomy, the main issue with palliative sedation is that it prohibits the patient from changing his or her decision, once sedation is commenced and informed consent also becomes complex (Cooney, 2005). The writer is in the favour of palliative sedation because it is an effective symptom controlled strategy for the patients who are nearly at the end of their lives. Moreover, it is believed that by providing sedation to a patient induce unconsciousness, which makes the patient completely unaware of the external world and tend to reduce the suffering by considering ethical and moral principles. However, some people think palliative sedation as euthanasia, which cause death because of making the patient deprive of nutrition and hydration while giving sedation. Ethical principles are going to be discussed in this essay such as autonomy, beneficence, non- maleficence and justice. Moreover, this essay also going to put light on current research
The situation in which one can observed unethical behavior would be in a hospital facility, where the wife of a spouse would have the sole priority in the decision making process. Actually, this situation was a dilemma that had happened to the researcher family, where she felt that she was being deprived of her rights to know about her brother’s situation at the hospice care. His wife was in charge when his life started to deteriorate and eventually was put on life support. According to English, Romano-Critchley, and Sommerville (2001), examined the human rights to “moral and legal differences between non treatment and intentionally hastening death of patient” (p. 413) has been an ethical topic for the past few years. The studied have reported
The first priority for the car of the patients facing severe pain as result of a terminal illness, or chronic condition should be the relief of their pain. Techniques of Patient Controlled Analgesia (PCA) enhance the sense of control of terminally ill patient’s, and for this specific reason, are particulary effective. Often it’s the loss of control, rather than physical pain, that casues the most suffering for dying patient’s. In contrast, those that arefor assisted suicide, are that it’s a patient’s right to decide whether they want to live or die. Physician-assisted suicide opens the door that carry far greater risk. For example, if assisted suicide is permitted and legalized, then there is a strong argument for allowing euthanasia. It would be arbituary to permit patient’s who have the physical ability to take a pill to end their lives, but not let similarly suffering patient’s die if they require the lethal drug. Once euthanasia is permitted, there is a serious risk of involuntay deaths.
Physician-assisted suicide is arguably one of the most controversial subjects to discuss or read about within our society. This paper will examine both sides of this discussion, from the aspect of the patient choosing to end their own life based on the quality of their remaining life. Also, the religious factors of the medical staff involved and the moral and ethical duty of the doctors to preserve the life of the patient if there are still means available.
The ethical issue is Euthanasia, there are many groups that support or oppose this issue. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The different viewpoints are based around whether it is humane to assist someone in dying and whether it should be illegal for someone to assist the death of someone who has a terminal illness and are suffering incurable pain. Groups that oppose the issue generally believe that it is inhumane to end someone 's life early, these groups generally believe these people should be given care and as much comfort as possible until their last days. Groups that support the issue generally believe that if someone has lost their mental state or are suffering unbearable pain that cannot be cured, that they should be allowed the option of euthanasia because it is inhumane to make someone suffer unbearable pain if they do not need to. An ethical issue brings systems of morality and principles into conflict, ethical issues are more subjective and opinionated and generally cannot be solved with facts, laws and truth. Euthanasia is an ethical issue because there are two equally unacceptable options. It is considered wrong
Very often, deliberate decisions are made which results in the end of a life. For example, a person could be kept on life support, but instead, a family member or other significant person might choose to switch off the life support machine resulting in the official death of a patient. There is also the case that resuscitation of a patient may eventually prove to be trivial and a doctor might suggest just making the patient as comfortable as possible until their eventual passing. In the above situations, a medical professional’s decisions would not be questioned or doubted. It is conventional practice (Warnock and MacDonald 2008).
“Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die?” – James Rachels. At the end of the disagreement, many philosophers say euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is a compassionate method of death. At the other side are the opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this technique as a form of murder. In this paper, I will show that it is not important to know the distinction between killing and letting die on request which is performed by a physician. Both killing and letting die on request are similar because it is based on the controversial issue called euthanasia also known as physician-assisted suicide.
Today, the fact that euthanasia is morality or immorality permissible is a very controversial issue debated and discussed by doctors and philosophers. This point generated a controversial debate. The discussion takes into account the ethics of medical
In end-of-life scenarios, where the patient may not be able to communicate their wishes, decisions must be made either by the healthcare professional(s) or family member(s). However, who gets to decide or where the line should be drawn are not always clear. Consequently, not all decisions may be ethically permissible. To illustrate, I will discuss a scenario in which physicians and family are not in agreement. Upon proving a brief summary and explaining the ethical dilemma, I will provide moral reasons for two ethically permissible choices from which, by referencing the principle of autonomy and Utilitarianism, will determine which course of action ought to be carried out.
Physician assisted suicide should be morally permissible. Patients who are in constant suffering and pain have the right to end their misery at their own discretion. This paper will explore my thesis, open the floor to counter arguments, explain my objections to the counter arguments, and finally end with my conclusion. I agree with Brock when he states that the two ethical values, self-determination and individual well-being, are the focal points for the argument of the ethical permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia (or physician assisted suicide). These two values are what drives the acceptability of physician assisted suicide because it is the patients who choose their treatment options and how they want to be medically treated. Patients are physically and emotionally aware when they are dying and in severe pain, therefore they can make the decision to end the suffering through the option of physician assisted suicide.
As the role of pharmacists in patient care continues to grow, the ethical challenges they face every day also increases. After the discussion with my preceptor about ethical situations that a pharmacist can experience, we decided to explore further about the controversial topic of end of life care, specifically avoidance of killing.
Freedom, independence and self-autonomy are fundamental rights of a human, This directly pertains to the central notion of an individual's right to live and right to die. A terminally ill patient should not suffer through excruciating pain and discomfort but rather embrace a timely and dignified death, this is implicit in the concept of liberty and self-determination. Despite rapid advancement in medical technology and modern palliative care, some patients suffer from incurable terminal diseases which inflicts destructive pain upon the patient both physically and mentally. They are unable to seek the compassionate relief of pain and suffering that they wish to
Assisted suicide brings a debate that involves professional, legal and ethical issues about the value of the liberty versus the value of life. However, before conceive an opinion about this topic is necessary know deeply its concept. Assisted suicide is known as the act of ending with the life of a terminal illness patients for end with their insupportable pain. Unlike euthanasia, the decision is not made by the doctor and their families, but by the patient. Therefore, doctors should be able to assist the suicide of their patients without being accused of committing a criminal offense. This conception is supported by three points of view. The first point defenses the autonomy of people, which covers the right of people to make decision
Ethics, in medicine, is described as applying one’s morals and values to healthcare decisions (Fremgen 2012). It requires a critical-thinking approach that examines important considerations such as fairness for all patients, the impact of the decision on society and the future repercussions of the decision (Fremgen 2012). According to Fremgen (2012), bioethics concerns ethical issues discussed in the perspective of advanced medical technology. Goldman and Schafer (2012) state bioethical issues that arise in medical practice include antibiotics, dialysis, transplantation, intensive care units, issues of genetics, reproductive choices and termination of care. In clinical practice the most common issues revolve around informed consent, termination of life-sustaining treatments, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, and conflicts of interest (Goldman, Schafer 2012).
The “Right to Die” (Euthanasia) should be further looked into as an option for terminally ill patients and not considered unethical. There has been an issue concerning the topic of “Human Euthanasia” as an acceptable action in society. The research compiled in conjunction with an educated opinion will be the basis for the argument for voluntary Euthanasia in this paper. Patients suffering from an incurable illness, exhausting all medical treatments, should be given the freedom of choice to continue their path of suffering or end it at their own will. “The Right to die” is not suicide, as you are fully aware that death will be certain, as Euthanasia spares the individual of additional pain.
There are many ethical issues that the medical field faces daily. One major issue that is a common debate recently is death and dying and the ethical dilemmas associated with this stage in life. There are many different routes a patient can take when they are diagnosed with a terminal illness, two routes that are often up for debate are palliative care and physician assisted suicide. Many ethical concepts are brought up in the debate of these routes of care, sometimes even conflicting one another. Since medicine has advanced over many years we are experiencing a growing population of elders. With this increase in the elderly population, the debate of death and dying has become an important topic to