Exploring The Cultural Meaning Behind Suffering

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

Abstract: This paper discusses the medical ethics of Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). Focusing on the ideas of legal vs illegal, the different views of PAS will both be addressed. While active euthanasia is illegal, passive euthanasia, or allowing natural death, is completely legal everywhere. PAS will help patients end suffering for themselves at the end of their lives, as well as the family's. The price of the drug may be expensive but the price of medical treatments continues to rise. The Hippocratic Oath does not support the aid in ending a life, however it has been changed in the past. Many citizens are afraid that is PAS was considered legal, it would grow into something even more illegal being debated. Also, the religious aspect of the end of life had conflicting views as some believe PAS is ending suffering, a good deed, and other believe PAS is not respecting a human life. PAS is only legal in seven states but has gained the attention of many others and other places around the world.

Aiding the death of infants is a much disputed controversy in healthcare. H. Tristram Engelhardt Jr. provides an ethical view that there is a moral duty not to treat an impaired infant when this will only prolong a painful life or would only lead to a painful death. It is these individuals, like Engelhardt, who must defend this position against groups who consider that we have the ability to prolong the lives of impaired infants, thus we are obligated to do so.

(Thesis, Description of the topic and related ethical implications, Obligations to your profession and work as a nurse) Debra Burden

“One of the obligations for nursing staff and everyone is to take care of the dead body whose perfused organs are being maintained by machines”, a panelist interjected. Many hospitals have policies whereby if one is hired by the hospital and has a personal, moral, or religious objection to certain things, then every effort will be made for someone else to participate – termination of pregnancy serves as an example, he continued. Furthermore, he emphasized that there does not have to be a conscientious objection on the part of the doctors or nurses based on spiritual, philosophical, or religious grounds; it’s solely based on not being required to give treatments that one believes are futile. As another member put it succinctly, “You can recuse yourself from performing such duties”. Moreover, the idea of futility is a vague idea, mentioned a panelist; he stressed that in this particular instance, regarding the woman’s brain-death state, this is totally futile. The whole idea behind a religious exemption is, as he put it: “You are not dead based on spiritual grounds. The family believes that it is not actual death – it is not cardiopulmonary death”. In addition, the doctor emphasized that many health practitioners also hold the same religious ideals and would conclude that the person is not dead.

Some people in society claim that PAS is only socially acceptable if a patient is terminally ill or is in painful suffering. In addition, it is a physicians moral imperative to ease a patients suffering which if the patient requests, could mean ending their life. The argument of

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

In today’s society, suicide, and more controversially, physician assisted suicide, is a hotly debated topic amongst both every day citizens and members of the medical community. The controversial nature of the subject opens up the conversation to scrutinizing the ethics involved. Who can draw the line between morality and immorality on such a delicate subject, between lessening the suffering of a loved one and murder? Is there a moral dissimilarity between letting someone die under your care and killing them? Assuming that PAS suicide is legal under certain circumstances, how stringent need be these circumstances? The patient must be terminally ill to qualify for voluntary physician-assisted suicide, but in the eyes of the non-terminal patients with no physical means to end their life, the ending of their pain through PAS may be worth their death; at what point is the medical staff disregarding a patient’s autonomy? Due to the variability of answers to these questions, the debate over physician-assisted suicide is far from over. However, real life occurrences happen every day outside the realm of debate and rhetoric, and decisions need to be made.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Mark whose skin was battered by repeated creases and wrinkles each having their own story, Mark whose bare trembling hands exposed dark spots and calluses, Mark whose eyes were fulfilled with the color of beryl - sharp but yet still filled with emotion like his mind where the unwanted knowledge penetrates his brain, the knowledge of the longing days of suffering and experiencing internal death, the knowledge that causes the disruption of sleep and content.

The word “Islam” can be translated to “suffering”. Islam teaches that enduring pain or suffering is a way of submitting to the will of Allah. Some pain can be attributed to evil. Many Muslims believe that suffering and adversity strengthen one's faith in Allah. Similarly pain often leads to prayer, repentance and good deeds.