Medical Fuutility Of Treatment : Ethical Topic In Medicine

A physician must understand that when it comes to deciding to withhold or withdraw life sustaining treatment it is ultimately the patient’s decision unless the patient is not competent enough to make this choice. I believe that a person can lose their life at any point. Death is certain and no one can run from it. In my opinion, a patient’s autonomy is of utmost importance anytime during healthcare however the physician can name some recommendations of what would be the best option for the patient. When it comes to patients they deserve to be treated with respect and ultimately be treated as an end not as a means to an end.

“…She’s somethin’ of a cunt, ain’t she Doc?” Although Milos Foreman’s character, Randle McMurphy (Jack Nicholson), put his opinion of Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher) in the most vulgar of terms, he was not so far from the truth. In the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975), Nurse Ratched’s treatment and care of the patients was unethical when compared to the standards one would expect of a health care administrator. She used control over her patients to ensure order, without regard to the feelings and concerns of the patients. This issue is presented by the director, Milos Foreman, through symbolism, characterization and scenes. This, in turn, determines how the director wants us, as viewers, to feel about the issue.

Rarely any physician intends to harm patients when he or she provides treatment to them. Patients see physicians and specialists in full faith that they will get help with a condition. What complicates the patient-doctor relationship is that the outcome of each patient’s treatment is different because of individual health conditions and the course of treatment chosen by the doctor. Problems arise when a patient is not satisfied with care provided by the doctor or in extreme cases when a patient dies. Since most of the time it is hard to clearly determine whether the outcome was solely a result of the course of treatment chosen by the doctor or whether other factors played a role too, quite often patients take their

Physicians should respect the patients decision to abandon life continuing treatment, deliberately causing death is morally impermissible.

In these two examples, rationing has to be used. There isn’t an infinite supply of organs and those requiring critical care need beds and health care personnel to tend to them. Those who disagree with rationing claim that by allocating resources, the relationship between patient and physician is compromised. Physicians are meant to be patient advocates who do as much possible to promote the health of their patients (Brody, 2012). However, when there aren’t enough resources to go around, patients suffer regardless of physician intentions (Brody, 2012). In general, most practitioners agree that performing unnecessary or optional treatments on patients is wasteful and occasionally harmful. By running one more test or performing one more procedure, a patient’s overall well-being might suffer and valuable resources are used. Health care in the United States is a finite resource. There are only so many doctors to treat patients. Additionally, various drugs needed to treat patients may cost thousands of dollars. Most patients will never pay for the true cost of their care. Instead, that price is left to private insurance and government programs like Medicaid and Medicare. However, it is generally agreed that spending thousands of dollars on a treatment that will only extend life in the short term is not the best value. In order to prevent “futile” procedures, some physicians find themselves

the physician to relieve the patient’s suffering” (Rogatz 1). A patient should certainly have the

While this tactic may seem to take the patient’s needs and concerns into account, it actually opens up a set of abuses and potential complications that worsen

The third defining principle of medical ethics is to “do no harm.” This means that even though a treatment may advance the health of a patient and

“First, Do No Harm”, a moral principal that all physicians live, and practice by. In a perfect world this amounts to preventing any further harm and most certainly, preventing death. Unfortunately, this is far from a perfect world, and sometimes a surgery can have unexpected complications, and other times a medication can have terrible side effects. In cases where a patient’s life is now defined by their pain, what exactly does “Do No Harm” mean? In preventing further harm would the physician be inclined to provide treatment that would sustain the patient’s life, while also extending the suffering? Would it be permissible, on a moral ground, to allow the patient to die, thus ending the suffering? And if so, what if the doctor were to assist

In correspondence to Wicclair’s testament to a pretense of scientific objectivity, comparative to a patient’s refusal of treatment, medical futility refers to conflicts between physicians and patients or surrogate decision makers, predominantly parents, regarding the non-provision of life-sustaining treatment with respect to palliative care. (p. 359. The juxtaposition of medical futility serves to implicate the incapacity to perform the very purpose of medicine, which is to save life itself. Questions regarding such provisions or the lack of, relative to medical futility, are inclusive to whether a practicing and licensed physician has the moral right and duty to refuse to provide treatment judged to be futile as well as whether the patient or parent has the moral and legal right to insist on treatment whilst the doctor has a corresponding duty to provide such treatment?

Person: Simple. Physicians have an obligation to relieve pain and suffering and to promote the dignity of dying patients in their care. They must also respect the patients’ decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment.

Kasman, Deborah L. “When is Medical Treatment Futile.”Publish Medical Center (2004).NCBI.Web. 19 Oct. 2004. Kasman researches a difficult ethical conundrum in clinical medicine which is determining when to withdraw. His paper elucidates the concept of “medical futility” and suggests means for physicians to negotiate transitions from aggressive treatment to comfort ones. Kasman draws from Schular Griffin Trooter in his research and how he delineates a clear definition of Medical Futility that corresponds with concepts stated by American Medical Associations Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. Trotter clarifies that “medical futility” occurs when: There is a goal, there is an action and activity aimed at achieving

Doctors are not as a matter of course anticipated that would experience this expansive meaning of beneficence.an illustration is resuscitating a suffocating casualty. On the other hand, no-maleficence intends "no mischief." Physicians must avoid giving inadequate medications or acting with noxiousness toward patients. This standard, in any case, offers minimal helpful direction to doctors subsequent to numerous valuable treatments likewise have genuine dangers. The appropriate moral issue is whether the advantages exceed the weights. Doctors ought not to give insufficient medicines to patients as these offer danger with no probability of advantage and along these lines have a possibility of hurting patients (Gabaldón & Aguilera, 2008). Moreover, doctors should not do anything that would intentionally hurt patients without the activity being adjusted by relative advantage. Since numerous solutions, systems, and intercessions reason hurt notwithstanding advantage, the rule of non-perniciousness gives minimal solid direction under the watchful eye of patients. An illustration from my practice is halting a solution that is appeared to be destructive

* The patient must be in a terminal condition: if I give the patient a fatal dose of pain-killing drugs and they would have recovered from their disease or injury if I had not given them the drugs, it is no use saying that my intention was to relieve their pain. And that applies even if there was no other way of controlling their pain. (Scanlon 2008).

Patients in the United States have a right to refuse care if treatment is being recommended for non-life-threatening illnesses according to the Washington School of Medicine (2012). The simple task of refilling a prescription, or choosing to not get a flu shot are all acts of not following through with treatment mechanisms. Patients often times refuse medical treatment for far more reasons than just religious beliefs. Subconscious emotion reasons about side effects, pain, healing time, and the procedure itself scares patient’s away (Washington School of Medicine, 2012).