Ethical Dilemmas In End-Of-Life Scenarios

.“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).

Mr. B, the patient’s brother is Mr. E’s designee to make healthcare decisions in the event that he is unable to do so for himself. He is left to make these decisions without a code of ethics or without medical knowledge. He counts on the medical professionals to assist him. He has an ethical obligation to abide by his brothers wishes and directives. He is influenced by his own beliefs and his perceptions of what his brother would want. If he has the good faith belief that his brother did not understand the need for the ventilator or the outcome of refusing the treatment, then it is not unreasonable or unethical

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

“An ethical dilemma exists when a choice has to be made in which the consequences may have a potential positive or negative outcome.”("Topic 4: Contemporary Ethical Dilemmas (How do managers evaluate beginning-of-life dilemmas?). ", n.d.) The given scenario presents a patient named Jamilah Shah, who is of Turkish descent, 90 years old and collapsed at the side of her bed in the extended care facility in which she resides. The patient suffers from Chronic Pulmonary disease and diabetes mellitus. The patient was rushed to the ER were the EKG and lab tests revealed she suffered a heart attack and she was started on anticoagulants. The patient has no advance directives and a communication barrier exists, the ER department contacts the emergency contact, one of the patient 's sons Bashir. The patient 's family arrives at the hospital and her son states that he makes the decisions and the wants a do not resuscitate order for his mother and no medical intervention other than comfort care. The social worker handling Jamilahs case is concerned by her family 's lack of support and that the family 's wishes are at odds with the patient 's request for help and her expressed desire to live. Furthermore if the patient does not receive a cardiac catheterization or is considered for a coronary bypass, she will surely die.

The “Right to Die” (Euthanasia) should be further looked into as an option for terminally ill patients and not considered unethical. There has been an issue concerning the topic of “Human Euthanasia” as an acceptable action in society. The research compiled in conjunction with an educated opinion will be the basis for the argument for voluntary Euthanasia in this paper. Patients suffering from an incurable illness, exhausting all medical treatments, should be given the freedom of choice to continue their path of suffering or end it at their own will. “The Right to die” is not suicide, as you are fully aware that death will be certain, as Euthanasia spares the individual of additional pain.

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

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.

Assisted suicide is viewed as a way to maintain human dignity, which is why there is a campaign to try and legalize physician-assisted suicide. It’s prideful for a terminally ill patient to “die with dignity”, however, most policy makers in our society have rejected the campaign. It’s a social debate regarding high cost of treatment in terminal phases as well as an ethical debate, because the struggle for life is a universal and natural thought for people within our societies. However, as a rule, the family doctor who has known the patient for years is the best judge of condition along with

The deliberate act of ending another 's life, given his or her consent, is formally referred to as euthanasia. At present, euthanasia is one of the most controversial social-ethical issues that we face, in that it deals with a sensitive subject matter where there is much uncertainty as to what position one ought to take. Deliberately killing another person is presumed by most rational people as a fundamental evil act. However, when that person gives his or her consent to do so, this seems to give rise to an exceptional case. This can be illustrated in the most common case of euthanasia, where the person who is willing to die suffers from an illness that causes great pain, and will result in his or her demise in the not-so-distant future.

Over the past several decades, the principle of respect for patient autonomy has assumed a central place in health care. Indeed, respect for the self-determining decisions or interests of patients now is an underlying consideration for most professional codes of practice and also patient codes of rights (Cruess & Cruess, 2008; MacLeod, Wilson & Malpas, 2012). The dilemma now is that fear of losing autonomy or dignity during the dying process could lead some patients to request a hastened death.

     Once having a mere glimpse into the lives of the terminally ill or disabled, some are able to understand their plight; but usually most are not. In most cases, these people are able to take what they've been given and deal with it. However, in some cases, some simply can not tolerate their lives as they are. They feel that the only solution to their problem is to end their lives. Unfortunately, in some cases, the terminally ill or disabled are not capable of accomplishing this task by themselves, and are left trapped in a life that they do not want. In these cases, when one wishes to end his life and is terminally ill, disabled, or otherwise unable to do so independently, he should have the right to die by assisted suicide. Although most people that are terminally ill or disabled do not wish to end their lives, there are still those few who do. While examining the issue of assisted suicide, three facets of the controversy must be considered: the political, the moral, and the human or compassionate views. By supporting their decision, we support their right to choose and decide what they want to do with their bodies and their lives, we do not

The situation can turn into an ethical problem; there are many protocols to be follow before making a final decision that will coincide with the family or guardians and other parties involve in the best patient’s interest. In the case of Earle N. Spring that came before a judge in nineteen seventy eight, end of life treatment or wishes had not been specified in any written form; consequently, a conflict arose between the family and medical team when it came to making a decision regarding Mr. Spring’s health (Spring. V. Hennessey, 1980)

Initially it appears as if the dilemma revolves around what the physician's next move should be. When actually the real dilemma is who owns the rights to make this life or death decision. It is clear what the patient wants for his course of treatment. It is equally clear what his mother will allow his treatment to be. Each has equally selfish reasons for wanting their decision to be upheld. The mother does not want to lose her son and will at all costs keep him alive. She feels he is romanticizing death and has no real concept of what dying means. Her son lived with cystic fibrosis since age four and has seen many of his friends placed on ventilators only to later die. He does not want that quality of life in his final days. The physician is supportive of the patient's request but is placed in an awkward legal position if he abides by the patients request. The nurse who has acted as an intermediary throughout this entire process continues to acts as a patient advocate and ensure the patients rights are observed and that his wishes are acknowledged.

Advances in Intensive Care Medicine have meant that prolonged maintenance of biological organ function is often possible regardless of the severity of an illness or injury. However, when clinicians judge that there is no hope of any meaningful recovery or survival, consideration is given to withdrawal or limitation of aggressive life sustaining therapy. Death invariably ensues shortly after. Withdrawal or limitation of life sustaining therapy now precedes the vast majority of deaths in Intensive Care Units (ICUs).

Health care professionals often experience dilemmas of caring for patients who are unable or incapable of expressing their wishes for end-of-life care and treatment. Often, family members and decision makers are unaware of any legal documentation possessed by the patient, nor has the patient ever