Back from the Dead: A Deontology Study Essay

“We don’t let animals suffer, so why humans?”(Stephen Hawking) Not only is assisted suicide not legal in most states, but people are judged for taking that option. So basically, they should just live in pain because you’re uncomfortable…? How is ending your dog's life because he’s in unbearable pain any different from helping a person end their pain?

Ethical dilemmas for all three cases are is it murder by assisting these three patients no longer suffer. Would there be pain and suffering involved directly by their actions? Are they doing the right thing by helping these people

Imagine a frail elderly woman laying in the nursing home in pain. This woman is 80 years old and has been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and her heart cannot withstand treatment via radiation or chemotherapy. She has less than six months to live. Day in and day out you pass her room and hear her crying out from the immense pain. The pain medications are no longer working. She’s tired of fighting, tired of hurting, and tired of waiting to die. After consideration and discussions with her family she has decided to ask the doctor to help and end her life. The doctor feels remorse for the elderly lady and wants to help but cannot decide if it is the ethical thing to do because he knows that what he’s

Some veterinarians are seeing more requests for convenience euthanasia due to the growing money problems and stress that family’s sometime face. “Philosophers, such as Steve Sapontzis, has argued that one does cause harm to an animal even by killing it painlessly,

A patient has to judge his or her own quality of life, making the action of assessing if a patient’s quality of life is so low that they should be considered for PAD. Although dogs and humans are very different creatures, anatomically and spiritually, PAD is the same concept of putting a dog to sleep. Both beings are loved by others greatly and both experience a low quality of life when they are ill. But why is it better to put dogs down when they are suffering, but it is not ethical for it to be done when a human is suffering? 7.6 million companionship animals were put down last year (2014) (ASPCA). The same idea and process are behind PAD. Physician Assisted Death is not abused by physicians, despite what many people believe PAD is very uncommon, even in states where it is legal. “Approximately 1 of 1,000 Oregonians obtain and use a lethal dose of medication; 17% personally considered it as an option.” (Lachman). But America is not the only place where is a controversy. “85% of 218 nurses in Australia carried out the request the physician’s request for active euthanasia” (Lachman), and “10,000 citizens of the Netherlands, where PAD is legal,

This emotionally charged case has strained the limits of medical, legal and moral reasoning. The facts of the case raise crucial questions concerning human life, its purpose, ends

Her heart stopped suddenly and by the time she was resuscitated, she suffered irreversible brain damage. She was in a vegetative state which means that she was awake but without conscious and no sign of awareness. She was kept alive by costly medical treatments and care including tubes injected for food and water for years. The doctors said that there was no chance of significant improvement. The question that came up was if Terri wanted to be kept alive in these circumstances and if she would have chosen death instead of suffering this way for years and the years to come. Her husband wanted her to be let go while her parents wanted her to remain alive despite there being no chance of improvement. This is a clear example of the utilitarian theory that shows many parties involved. It is clear that everyone will suffer, but if we put ourselves in Terri’s shoes, she is the one suffering the most. In order to reach the most good out of the situation, it would be best if the doctors remove the feeding tube ending the financial and emotional strain. Though it will be tough for the family, the most good for the family is to know that Terri is no longer suffering. It was unfortunate that this situation happened in the public eye when the courts got involved. The judge did rule to remove her feeding tube, but is there a breaking a point of when the law should play in such a sensitive

I have specifically identified the three situations above, because I feel only in these cases should the doctor seriously consider the option of PAS, or in the situation of option three, how to alternatively assist a patient who is seriously considering euthanasia. In the first case, I mention the doctor’s patient being in a permanent vegetative state – medically defined as patients who have an irreversible loss of brain damage who are left permanently unaware and extremely unlike to ever recover. The vegetative state case is a vital circumstance in which the doctor should consider euthanasia, because these patients will most likely never function fully as human beings again, therefore never to lead a life worth living. The decision is only to be made by the family, guardian, or caregiver of the patient rather the doctor should end treatment to allow to patient to live. However, this should only be done after six months of complete inactivity of the patient, to secure there is no chance of revival. If the family requests for their loved one to be kept alive after the six month, their wishes must be granted; the doctor shall have no say in the

In certain states, it has nothing to do with a doctor’s Hippocratic oath and it should be stated over and over again that this is what the patient wants – not what the doctor wants (Botelho, 2015). The doctor has no say in the matter other than to agree or disagree with the patient’s wishes. If there is no possible route of treatment for a patient, it should be allowed for the doctors to give the okay if the patient doesn’t want to harm themselves or their families in the months or years of trauma that would come with their terminal illnesses. For patients, it is nothing but pain and suffering. As stated earlier: If we can do it to our animals, isn’t it fair that we can do it for ourselves as well? If anyone see’s that their animal is in pain, the first thing an owner does is ask a veterinarian what the right treatment option is, and usually, it is euthanasia if they’re all out of

This case was extremely rigorous and one that is unforgettable. Taking care of this dog makes me yearn for more exciting experiences like this one. Not only does it require taking care of dogs, there are also the chances of working with all animals and all kinds of different cases. You meet the owners of these animals and make relationships with them, you learn about their personal life. There are many patients that I still keep tabs on and will continue to do so for as long as possible. Memorable experiences happen all the time, some big, some small. Not all memorable experiences happen at a “big game,” or wedding, just like mine happened at a

According to Rachels (248), a proponent of euthanasia, states the act is justified if death is the only way out of one’s awful pain. On the other hand, Gay Williams (353), an opponent of euthanasia, views it as immoral to take someone’s life before his or her own natural death time reaches. Medically, euthanasia can be acceptable for those patients that are extremely suffering and their doctors have no idea on what to do to help a patient whose condition is only worsening. Often, it is administered on consultation with the family members of the patient in question. However, health practitioners are held within the bounds of professionalism where they are made to understand sanctity of life. Doctors are not supposed to decide the future of

Ethical dilemma may also arise in cases where a patient may feel their right to DNR should be carried out when giving direct order. The DNR process, however, is required to be documented by a physician. Andrew Putnam (2003) presents a case where an eighty-eight year old patient’s code status was DNR; “However, the patient has never signed formal advance directive statement or assigned durable power of attorney for her health care to anyone.” (Putnam, 2003, 2025) Ethics can be simply stated as doing the right thing (Roberts, 2002, 242); but in this case ethics is questioned because the physician was faced with the decision to carry out the wishes of the patient or to make a decision based on legality. In this case, it may have been morally right to carry out the wishes of the patient who wanted DNR orders carried out, but it may have been the right choice to do the legal thing and not carried out due to lack of signed documentation.

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.

To begin with, the client whose name is Mr. Sam Pilsudski has an obstructed airway secondary to cancer of the larynx. He is a 67-year-old widower, and a father of one son and two daughters, who is unconscious and terminally ill, if not for a much-needed operation to remove both his cancer and larynx to save his life. However, one of Mr. Pilsudski’s daughters has adamantly refused to consent to the surgical procedure despite the physician explaining that although the operation would unfortunately render his patient disabled without a voice consequentially, but ultimately surviving the procedure to live and recover. Moreover, the physician attempted with rational and clear communication to express the gravity of the rather poor prognosis of his illness to his daughter that in the event of foregoing the surgery, his patient would surely die (Ralph Dolgoff, Donna Harrington, and Frank M. Loewenberg (2012), Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice. 9th Ed; p. 279).

Historically ethics was studied from a philosophical aspect and viewed as the science of morals. Ethics had been defined as the principles of moral conduct that govern our behavior. Our ethical behavior is developed from various factors, to include our environment, family and beliefs. The origins of ethics can be traced back to the fifth century, BC ( Banner, 1968, pg.67). Plato, Socrates and Aristotle are among the early teachers of ethics.