Ethical Dilemmas In End Of Life

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

In homes across the world, millions of victims are suffering from fatal and terminal illnesses.With death knocking on their door, should these people have to endure pain and misery knowing what is to come? The answers to these questions are very controversial. Furthermore, there is a greater question to be answered—should these people have the right and option to end the relentless pain and agony through physician assisted death? Physician-Assisted Suicide PAS is highly contentious because it induces conflict of several moral and ethical questions such as who is the true director of our lives. Is suicide an individual choice and should the highest priority to humans be alleviating pain or do we suffer for a purpose? Is suicide a purely

Physician-assisted suicide is controversial in healthcare and political realms alike. Currently, this end-of-life option is practiced in five states within the United States. Social concerns regarding assisted suicide revolve around ethical quandaries; providing the means to a patient’s death is contradictory to ethical principles of healthcare providers. Political concerns surrounding the legalization of assisted suicide include disparities in healthcare that may lead to certain populations choosing assisted suicide and the stagnation of current care options. While there is no succinct manner in which to declare assisted suicide right or wrong, each individual must address the social and political concerns surrounding the issue when voting for legislation to legalize assisted suicide or pursuing the option for themselves.

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.

Who dictates how you live your life? How does one define life and when that life should end? If you become terminally ill, would you like the choice to choose how your life ends? In the United States, assisted suicide, is a highly-debated issue. On one side, there are many in support of allowing a person the right to end their life with dignity at the time of their choosing. While others believe, it is a moral right to sustain life and leave a person’s exit from this world to a higher power. The two opposing viewpoints have both compassionate reasons and disadvantages; nevertheless, a person’s human rights as an individual are the most important aspect to uphold.

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.

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

Individuals who are young and healthy possibly never think about advance directives including a DNR order. Perhaps, it is when a parent or a loved one becomes terminally ill that forces one to look at end of life directives. As a hospital staff nurse, I have found that most people are familiar with the term Do Not Resuscitate (DNR); however, the term advance directives must be further explained to patients and family members. Although terminology can be a barrier, most patients making an end of life decisions have strong opinions concerning the end of life care. Expressing those feelings in legal documentation can be a challenge. The ANA Code of Ethics Provision 1.4 (Nursing Ethics, 2016) addresses the responsibility of the nurse to be knowledgeable

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.

While examining the issue related to end-of-life decisions raise both legal and ethical concerns. The issues may be accountable by a number of issues like who the patient is, who has legal competence to determine what course of action is in the best interest of the patient, Pennsylvania state laws, the values of the patient or the patients parents, and the counselor of the patient providing the services. Standard A.9.c reports counselors have the option to break or not break confidentiality in this situation. Throughout the decision making process, Clinical Mental Health counselors need to be engaged in consultation or supervision since the professional has legal, ethical, and moral dirty to warn when the suspect their client may be in danger (Newsome, Gladding, Pg. 68)

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

continue full treatment in accordance with patient’s desires or side with physicians and not intubate patient) we can reasonably argue that, under Utilitarian grounds, the act of not intubating her would be morally acceptable and ought to be the course of action that is followed. Such reasoning lies on the fact that a higher level of utility (happiness) would be achieved. In other words, because Utilitarianism determines acts as ethical or morally suspect based on consequences, the end results are what should be considered in who should decide and where should the line be drawn. That is, the concept of “maximizing the greatest good” is important in solving this case

Is it ethical to end a person's life, especially if they are elderly and suffering? Memorial Hospital staff asked themselves that same question when enduring hurricane Katrina. The hospital's patients, staff, and visitors suffered terrible conditions for five days which resulted in 45 deaths. 23 of whom were euthanized, and nine of the euthanized were elderly patients. Anna Pou, a leading doctor, was witnessed "carrying syringes in [her] hands. She had escorted the health professionals to each of the patient's bedsides and...had been present for some of the injections" (Fink 2013). Because of their limited mobility and negative prognosis, these patients were the expectant, or without hope, therefore the lowest priority. Alternatively, ambulatory

With major advancement in medical treatments, it is now possible to keep a patient alive, which would not have been possible in former times. This has made end of life issue one of the most controversial issues in healthcare. Medical improvements have set the stage for ethical and legal controversies about not only the patient’s rights but also the family’s rights and the medical profession’s proper role. It is critical that any decision made in such situation is ethical and legal to preserve the rights of the patient and also protect the healthcare institution involved. It is very important when making decisions to discontinue treatments to make sure all other alternatives have been explored.

Once it is determined that a client is at risk for serious harm to himself or herself, the professional is ethically and legally required to take appropriate actions aimed at protecting the person. The laws of Cyprus as well as the Cyprus Psychologists’ Association (CYPSA) and the Pancyprian Psychological Society (PASYPSY) clearly state that when a client is suicidal, confidentiality has to be bridged in order to prevent harm from happening. However, the case of Melissa appears to be different and represents a moral dilemma. Whilst having in mind Melissa’s terminal illness, it is up to the psychologist to decide whether or not confidentiality should be bridged. Nevertheless there is no clear-cut set of instructions for how a psychologist should proceed with a client who is