The Principle Of Respect For Patient Autonomy Essay

.“As medical technology continues to advance and health care choices become more complicated, the preservation of end-of-life autonomy is an increasingly important issue faced by various client populations.” (Galambos, 1998).

Medical regulators in every province have issued detailed guidelines that doctors must follow to help suffering patients end their lives and most of these guidelines impose safeguards. It is required that at least two doctors must agree that a patient meets the eligibility

Choosing the Physician Assisted Death is a basic right to terminally-ill, it’s an autonomy for dying, and it’s a way to end their misery as well as end the sorrow and grief of their

Similar to Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, I do believe there should be a policy with relevant criteria that best describes how to respond to patients needs and to protect vulnerable people in regards to PAS. To respect others’ autonomy or right to self-determination is to treat them as individuals having the abilities required to be rational decision makers, capable of identifying their own interests and making their own reflective choices. At the end of the day, patients should have the right to autonomous decision-making to determine for themselves what will be done to their bodies.

In our country the premise of physician assisted death conjures images of suicidal madmen, hell bent on death and mayhem. The reality is, that could not be farther from the truth. So why is there a stigma on assisting patients with taking their own life? Others look at this as a dignified means to those suffering a terrible fate. There are many issues that weight heavy on the difference between physician assisted and vs. natural death. Is it cruel to let a terminal ill patient who will suffer horrendously until nature take its course? Would it be more humane to allow a patient to pass peacefully without the suffering or enduring painful end? This report will examine physician assisted death

Autonomy explores the idea of every person having rights in regards to healthcare and decision making. “Autonomy is an agreement to respect another’s right to self-determine a course of action and support independent decision making” (Beauchamp & Childress, 2009). In 1990, the ideas of autonomy lead to the Patient Self Determination Act which allows competent people to make their wishes known about end of life. The act includes living wills and health care power of attorneys, which deals with end of

The healthcare system is complex with nearly every decision made posing an ethical dilemma for patients, providers, and healthcare leaders. With an influx of new medical knowledge from evidence based practices and new technologies more decisions are being made available to patients and families. Terminally ill patients for instance are faced with numerous options when it comes to treatment including whether or not they end their life by terminating treatment altogether or seek controversial options such as Physician’s Assisted Suicide. The topic of Physician’s Assisted Suicide or (PAS) is very intricate with numerous pros and cons, moral ethics, and ways to address the issue within the healthcare practice.

Thesis: When it comes to the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS), some experts believe that an individual should have the option of ending their life in the event that they have been given six months to live with a terminal illness or when the quality of their life has been vastly changed. Where this argument usually ends, however, is on the question whether physician-assisted suicide is medically ethical, would be overly abused to the point where doctors might start killing patients without their consent. Whereas some experts are convinced that just improving palliative care would decrease the need for someone to want to end their life before it happened naturally.

Dying on your own terms is a very controversial topic. It seems that both sides of the argument feel very strongly about their position. In this paper, I will argue that physician assisted suicide should be an available and accessible option for patients that are opting to end their lives on their own terms. Choosing to utilize physician assisted suicide can decrease pain and suffering, allow a person to die with dignity and independence by not feeling that they are becoming a burden on their family, and prevent a person from dying alone. Some of the reasons people are against physician assisted suicide include their personal religious beliefs and the fear that it may get out of hand and target certain people in society, including being used on people with disabilities or certain races.

In majority of the cases where patients requested help with their demise, the diagnoses included cancer, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and various neurological diseases. The article states further that primary patient concerns, while typically nonphysical, included being a burden on their families and caregivers, loss of control of physical and mental capacities to function, being reliant on others for personal, private care, and diminished self-esteem and dignity. The chief conclusions drawn from this study include that most individuals requesting life-ending prescriptions from their physicians are doing so with primarily intangible, nonphysical worries in mind. Perhaps more surprisingly, most physicians do not consult their work-associates regularly about these appeals. Without guidance from other physicians and regulations verified by higher authorities, there is reason to question how doctors are able to guarantee both quality and equality in the assessment of patient appeals for physician-assisted suicide. This article both stresses the desire for dignified death by individuals suffering from terminal illnesses and the importance of having the practice regulated to protect both patients and physicians

Suffering at the end of life stems from multiple sources, including unyielding pain, depression, loss of personal identity, loss of control and dignity, fear of death, and/or fear of being a burden on others (AAHPM, 2007). The overwhelming symptoms lead many terminally ill patients to ask their doctors to help them die (Gorman, 2015). According to Dr. R. Sean Morrison, professor of geriatrics and palliative care medicine at Mt. Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine in New York, “their choice shouldn’t be an assisted death or living with intractable suffering” (as cited in Gorman, 2015). The American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM) (2007) strongly recommends that medical practitioners

Determining the value of one’s life is purely subjective and can only be done on an individual basis, therefore prohibiting terminal patients from considering a death with dignity is an unfair extension of pain and suffering. Physician assisted death should be regulated so that all qualifying patients will have the opportunity to die with dignity if they so wish.

Opponents of this practice feel that patients may be too ill or worried that they will not be able to think through to exercise a real inform consent. The legality of physician-assisted suicide may interfere with good physician-patient relationship. Patients may feel that if their physician is willing to participate in the act, then, society and the doctor would prefer that death occur. This misunderstanding may further imply that the terminally ill people are expected to end their lives. Besides, the legalization of physician-assisted suicide increases the likelihood that death will become acceptable for other people such as the mentally disable, the physically challenged, and the elderly (Weiss & Lonnquist,

However, there is immense criticism on the morality of the process, especially because the process denies a patient the right to natural death. The critics of the assisted suicide procedure argue that such a process devalues human life and tends to promote suicide as an alternative to personal suffering. By claiming that the procedure allows terminally ill patients to initiate dignity at death is flawed because the purpose of medical profession is to ensure a dignified life. According to the physicians’ code of ethics and the Hippocratic Oath, physicians are not allowed to do harm to their patients because their role is to allow a dignified health for members of the community. Consequently, legalization of Physician Assisted suicide that requires physicians to assist the patients to die is against their medical ethics. Quill, Cassel, & Meier (2010) provide that although the patients voluntarily ask the medical practitioners to assist in the process, the practitioners have a role to advise the patients against such a procedure. Besides, such a premise is bound to raise awareness of suicide as an alternative to suffering within the public domain, which may encourage such behavior among healthy members of the community that feel that they enjoy the freedom to make such a decision. On this basis, the negative moral implication of assisted suicide makes its legalization unworthy in the

The patient voluntarily wanted to end his life because he was suffering from Lou Gehrigs’s disease (Siu, 2008). Since then, the controversy over active euthanasia has remained an ethical dilemma for healthcare providers, patients and their family members in America and the rest of the world. The general public’s belief is that, health-care providers have professional obligations to save the lives of their patients regardless of their health status. The majority of the public feels that, healthcare workers’ involvement in the euthanasia practice is a betrayal of the “do no harm” oath. When a healthcare worker is involved in either active or passive euthanasia, it can be viewed as a disregard to this value. However, the proponents for euthanasia claim that a physician turning down a suffering patient’s request to end their life is also a violation to the “do no harm” oath (Siu, 2008). The right to die falls under patient’s autonomy and the basic question is whether individuals should be allowed to end their lives if they choose to do so (Sanders & Chaloner 2007). Those in the healthcare sector grapple with this notion on a daily bases because they have to practice under the codes of ethics guidelines. Nurses and doctors should be cautious in their practice as they balance the patient’s autonomy and their professional ethics and guidelines. Sanders & Chaloner (2007) pointed out that nurses and doctors know that a patient's autonomy