Changes in the brain-death statute were made relatively recently by the governor there is now more

We are culturally ingrained from an early age that life is precious and each day is a gift. Life should not be squandered but preserved.  We are encouraged to live with a purpose, cherish our loved ones and live life to its fullest. But what if life becomes too physically painful to endure, often experienced by many terminally ill patients suffering an incurable disease, or a chronically ill elderly person who lacks the ability to thrive?  For forty-five day’s I watched my chronically ill mother languish away in a hospice care facility. The experience was emotionally and financially draining, and I began questioning whether a person should have the right to choose when and how to end their life. In the United States, assisted dying is a widely debated and passionate issue. Opponents argue preserving life, regardless of how much a person is suffering, is an ethical and moral responsibility, determined only by a higher power.  At the other end of the spectrum are those who support a person’s right to end their life with dignity at a time of their choosing.   Wouldn’t my mother’s suffering been greatly reduced if her doctor was legally and ethically permitted to administer a lethal cocktail of drugs to end her life quickly and painlessly? Wouldn’t the prevailing memory of my mother see her in a better light instead of helplessly watching her undignified death? To deny terminal and chronically ill people the freedom to end their

Autonomy can override beneficence when life-support is withdrawn (Prozgar, 2010). In addition, when a physician takes the position of withdrawing life-supporting equipment, the principle of non-maleficence is severed. Since helping patients die violates the physician’s virtue of duty to save lives,” distributed justice is served by releasing a room in the intensive care unit for a patient who has a higher chance of resolving their medical problems (Pozgar, G. 2010). There are so many inflict fuzzy gray areas and ideas about conflicting DNR policies that political disputes had to go to the courts to sort out the issues legally.

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 thin line between life and death has become an ethical issue many health care providers and the government have long tried to ignore. The understanding that life begins at birth, and ends when the heartbeat and breathing have ceased has long been deemed factual. Medical technologies have changed this with respirators, artificial defibrillators, and transplants (Macionis, 2009). “Thus medical and legal experts in the United States define death as an irreversible state involving no response to stimulation, no movement or breathing, no reflexes, and no indication of brain activity” (Macionis, 2009, p. 436).

A patient is lying on a hospital bed hooked up to several machines regulating his bodily functions. The doctor has informed the family that the patient is brain dead. His spouse makes the decision to pull the plug but his mother argues against it. It is the mothers opinion that her son is still alive, and deserves to be treated like a person, even though his brain is no longer functioning. The spouse holds the opinion that any trace of her loved one has left with the death of his brain and only his body remains. Suddenly, both remember the patients wishes to not be sustained on life support, and they collectively decide to pull the plug. This example illustrates the central debate

This assignment will discuss a case involving an individual known to me. It centres on the real and contentious issue of the “right to die”, specifically in the context of physician-assisted death. This issue is widely debated in the public eye for two reasons. The first considers under what conditions a person can choose when to die and the second considers if someone ever actually has a ‘right to die’. The following analysis will consider solutions to the ethical dilemma of physician-assisted death through the lens of three ethical theories. It will also take into account the potential influence of an individual’s religious beliefs

Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.

Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are both types of medical assistance aiding in ending a suffering patient’s life. This pain may be due to a terminal illness and suffering as well as those in an irreversible coma. This practice of doctor assisted suicide is illegal in many countries, but is increasing in popularity as people start to recognize the positive aspects that euthanasia has to offer for those that fit the criteria. Euthanasia is essential for those, placed in such life diminishing situations, and whom no longer want to experience suffering. This is where the issue gets complicated, and many religious groups argue that individuals should not have the legal right to choose whether they get to die or not, but that it is simply in God’s hands. Suffering patients argue that they should be given the right to choose whether or not they have to experience this suffering, to end their life with the dignity they still have, and to alleviate the stress that their deteriorating life conditions have on their families, themselves and the entire healthcare system. Therefore, despite the many arguments, euthanasia can have a very positive impact on the lives and families of suffering individuals, as well as the Canadian healthcare system.

According to the Holy Text in Islam, killing a person, even when said person is terminally ill, is forbidden. Yet modern advancements in medicine are continuously increasing the conditions that question this ahkam or perhaps render it anachronistic. Contemporary improvements in medicine have, for the first time ever, granted humans the ability to maintain physical life even when cerebral existence has ceased. Furthermore, new technologies have allowed doctors to employ extreme measures in prolonging life even in the direst of circumstances. Such cutting-edge developments, which are continuing to create new ways to keep people alive, also generate alternative decisions that were previously unavailable to doctors and patients in earlier times. One of the most controversial options that is now accessible to the medical community is that of life support. Its controversy derives from the many questions it prompts surrounding euthanasia, murder, and suicide. These questions are particularly important to Muslims because the Holy Scripture provides some clashing regulations according to the Shari’a. In my paper, I will analyze the central doctrine and rules of Islam that guide the practices of end-of-life resolutions. I will also review the ethical obstacles that Muslim jurists and medical practitioners face when proposing and carrying out actions regarding brain death and life support with adherence to the Shari’a. I find that two courses of action, which allow the

The current health situation should be explained in a non-technical way so the patient (if possible) family, and or valid surrogate can understand every aspect. The physician should also help them understand when there is no hope for recovery. Most often the organs are no longer functioning, or there is little to no brain activity; at this point suffering potentially outweighs the probability of recovery. Medical teams most often realize that the focus should be on comfort, rather than extending a dying life. This decision comes with a great deal of uncertainty, and will always be hard, no matter what age of the patient, or the circumstances. Kathryn Kosh, MD explains that, “Ready access to advanced modern technology has changed death from an event to a process… Defying death requires payment [in the form of] pain and discomfort or in an unacceptable decline in the quality of life.” Often times physicians will not prescribe treatment in the first place knowing that this option will not benefit the patient, prolong suffering; and will likely end in termination anyway. Therefore, allowing the nature of the illness or injury to take its own course of action. Another point of interest regarding this topic is that medical teams realize in most cases, that providing an ethical and dignified death can be just as rewarding as administering aggressive measures to save a

Active euthanasia should be permitted as a medical treatment to allow people the right to die with dignity without pain and in peace. Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide or mercy killing, takes on many different forms. When most Americans think of euthanasia, they think of a specific form that is referred to as “active euthanasia” which means to actively do something that will end a patient’s life with or without that individual’s consent. When euthanasia is performed in an involuntary manner it is usually because the patient is comatose, unconscious, or otherwise unable to communicate whether or not they want to have their life prolonged through artificial means. In such cases, the physician makes an

Moreover, euthanasia is restricted by the church. This is another important point that we should consider, especially for religious people. According to “Death and Dignity” it is emphasized that “Life is a gift from God and it is only God who can take it back”. Christian’s point of view considers euthanasia as a crime against church, religion and God. Christians consider this as an immoral act. When considering the religious factor as well, we can conclude that no one has the right to take control over our lives, especially when we are unconscious.

Doppler ultrasound is a way to measure the peak systolic and diastolic velocities. Resting peak velocities in both common carotid and internal carotid arteries decrease as individual ages. If a stenosis is present, then the internal carotid velocity increases relative to the normal values. To get an estimate of the blood flow, researchers use Doppler and B-mode ultrasound measurements. (3) By examining the blood flow at the bifurcation ridge in the carotid artery, we could determine few key features of the blood that is being delivered to the brain via the carotid arteries. Nearly two-thirds of the entire flow, enters the internal carotid artery and the velocity of the blood in the proximal internal carotid artery is usually higher on the wall next to the bifurcation.

The concept of bioethics was created to offer guidance to any individual within the boundaries of a health or medical setting. Bioethics is incorporated in many issues on human-life ranging from the beginning of life aspects such as in vitro fertilization, to end of life considerations including, end of life decision making and euthanasia, to name a few. Although many bioethical issues require a great amount of contemplation, many adopt a secular model in order to avoid the religious or theological dissensions that are often associated with today’s healthcare and medicine. Yet, the arguments brought about by these issues cannot be overlooked when consider any bioethical issues. Religion and bioethics each offers different perspective on medical

The author goes on reflecting on the idea that, given the scientific advancements and the increase of irreligious societies in the West, most americans doubt the existence of an afterlife, and thus indicating that the terror of death is more prominent than the perpetual sanctity of life. Hence, the current belief in the medical field, “judging by public opinion and the decision of the law courts”, is that any sign of life should be preserved at all costs. Lambert goes ahead and presents the two different instances where life is preserved at any cost. She indicates that it doesn’t matter whether it is a tragically malformed infant or a very old person whose faculties are no longer working. “the spark of life must be kept glowing”. Her personal opinion in the matter is nothing but