Death, Dying and Other Ethical Dilemmas

Ethical dilemmas occur when there is a disagreement about a situation and all parties involved question how they should behave based on their individual ethical morals. (Newman & Pollnitz, 2005). The dilemma that I will be addressing in this essay involves Michael, recently employed male educator working in the nursery, and parents of a baby enrolled at the centre. The parents have raised concerns about male educators changing their child’s nappy as they have cultural practices that do not allow this practice to take place. This situation is classed as an ethical dilemma as there is a dispute between cultural beliefs and legal requirements within the workplace. There are four parties involved (parents, child, educator and director), all

An incredibly controversial issue clouds the minds of millions of people everyday as death confronts them. The problem revolves around the ethics of euthanasia. Should medical assisted suicide be outlawed in all situations or under certain circumstances, could it be considered ethical? Do humans violate nature’s course with science and advanced technology by playing God? Why should doctors and families witness their loved ones suffer when the solution of euthanasia promises a painless death? Authors Andrea E. Richardson and David Miller of the articles “Death with Dignity: The Ultimate Human Right” and “From Life to Death in a Peaceful Instant” reflect upon their experiences and feelings

Brittany Maynard was one of the people to use the Death with Dignity Act in Organ and once said,“To have control of my own mind…to go with dignity is less terrifying. When I look at both options I have to die, I feel this is far more humane” (Sandeen, 2014). No matter what, we will all eventually die, but we should have the right to die as humanely as possible. The Death with Dignity Act is an end-of-life choice possibility for terminally ill patients to be given the freedom to decide for themselves what it means to die with dignity. This act allows them to die with dignity by providing them with lethal medications prescribed by a physician (The Oregon Department of Human Services, 2006). The Death with Dignity Act started to allow people with six months or less to live, the right to die in a manner and at the time of their own choosing. Also, even though modern medicine has benefited humanity greatly, it cannot completely resolve the suffering and distress that comes with the dying process, so Death with Dignity can provide a painless end-of-life choice for suffering individuals (Humphry, 2009). Although Death with Dignity is a controversial topic I feel it can be very beneficial especially since people go through a long process just to try to get the medication and the ones that get it really need it. I chose this topic because death always has been interesting to me and I one day hope to have a career

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

Joni at age 17 had mishap that let in a state of quadriplegic and paralyzed from her shoulder down. To her she had no purpose of life anymore. Her situation causes her to feel that she will be an inconvenience to people, because of her disabilities. Joni had to tolerate suffering and hardship, to her there was no point of living this way and wishes to be euthanized. Her wishes for assisted suicide brings an ethical dilemma in a Christians worldview. The dilemma is that suicide is consider a sin and to assist Joni with her request goes against my beliefs. There is a decision that I have to make I can assist her in her request against my beliefs or I can choose not to do it and explain to Joni why is it important not to commit this sin

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.

NBH’s present ethics committee is made up of a multi-disciplinary team who assist us primarily with end-of-life conflicts and policy, education on clinical ethical issues, assisting in formulating policy surrounding clinical ethical issues, brain death and decisions on complicated cases and subsequent policy changes (Annas, & Grodin, 2016). Our ethics committee can also be called upon for organ transplant conflicts, disagreements between patients, families and clinical teams, especially when the dispute can become harmful to the patient (Annas, & Grodin, 2016).

The ethical debate on non-voluntary euthanasia is a complex issue due to its multifaceted nature. This topic examines the morality of ending a human’s life in circumstances where the person is incapable of issuing explicit consent. These cases would include utilizing euthanasia on very young children or someone in a vegetative state. There lacks consent with young children since they cannot speak to provide consent. Explicit consent is lacking with someone in a vegetative state since they are incapable of deciding at that moment to continue living or end their life.

Many families endure the loss of parents or loved ones in hospitals, and ethics in the medical world keep a strict set of policies to ensure that patients’ rights are looked at with the utmost respect and concern. A raging debate has risen in recent years questioning the morality and ethics regarding “pulling the plug” on life support patients or issuing “Do Not Resuscitate” slips and allowing some patients to die without the possibility of being saved by medical practices. Many who agree with life support claim that it is “morally wrong to let someone die”. This debate often makes it difficult for doctors to know what decisions to make in a hospital setting, especially when the legality of the DNR is questionable. Medical and legal experts

They were the subjects of public disputes with family members, court systems, medical professionals, the media, and society at large. Terri Schiavo, Nancy Cruzan and Karen Ann Quinlan; their names are synonymous with permanent vegetative state (PVS). The amazing technological advancements in modern medicine has been credited with keeping persons alive who in times past would have died, therefore this is remarkable for countless families. In the cases of the Quinlan’s, the Cruzan’s and many like them, families members find it unbearable to witness loved ones who linger indefinitely in PVS with little or no chance for recovery. There are many like Terri Schiavo’s parents, who value the lives of their love ones no matter how limited their

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.

The issues surrounding assisted suicide are multifaceted. One could argue the practice of assisted suicide can appear to be a sensible response to genuine human suffering. Allowing health care professionals to carry out these actions may seem appropriate, in many cases, when the decision undoubtedly promotes the patient's autonomy. From this viewpoint, the distinctions made between assisted suicide and the withholding of life-sustaining measures appears artificial and tough to sustain. In many cases, the purpose and consequences of these practices are equivalent. On the contrary, if

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

The philosophical theories and ethics of two philosophers, Aristotle and Kant, offer two differing views on the morality of euthanasia. Margaret P. Battin’s “Euthanasia: The Way We Do It, the Way They Do It” offers three countries’ perspectives on and laws regarding euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide, as well as evaluations and critiques of their policies. To determine which of these points of view has the most pertinence, all of these arguments will be outlined and consequently analyzed, both separately and in relation to each other. Their differences and similarities will be enumerated and described, consequently their merit will be discussed. Ultimately, Aristotle’s moral theory centering around eudaimonia will be shown to be superior to Kant’s categorical imperative, because of its flexible nature when evaluating the acceptability of euthanasia under different circumstances.

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