Obama Death Panels

Dr. Glucksberg charged the State of Washington in violating patients Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Due Process Clause states that you have certain rights that haven’t been specifically outlined within the Constitution. They argued that you have certain rights to die as you have certain rights to live. However in 1997, the State of Washington said that you should not have this right. This was because they were afraid that once physicians were able to encourage patients to commit suicide, or pull themselves off live giving

The Superior Court of Los Angeles County became a pivotal case in a patient’s right to refuse treatment. In the initial case Ms. Bouvia and her legal team sought a court order to have the NGT removed and to stop all medical treatments she did not consent to. She argued that this treatment would not be a cure for her condition and would not improve her quality of life. The hospital staff argued the interest of the state prevailed over a patient’s right to refuse treatment. They noted that the state and healthcare teams viable interests include: “(1) preserving life, (2) preventing suicide, (3) protecting innocent third parties, and (4) maintaining the ethical standards of the medical profession, including supporting the right of physicians to effectively render necessary and appropriate medical services” (Liang & Lin, 2005). Additionally they sighted Ms. Bouvia’s failed previous attempt to “starve herself to death” in 1983 with the assistance of her medical team. The court denied her request citing these key interests and the fact that medical professionals felt that Ms. Bouvia could live 15-20 additional years with supplemental nutrition justified the state’s interest in preserving her life. The court also stated that any other decision would be condoning a medical team to aid and abet suicide.

Only one fifth of doctors in the Michigan study said they support a ban on assisted suicide.” Vice chair of the American Medical Association, Dr. Thomas Reardon says, “We believe the US supreme court will recognize and honor our ethical code and refuse to declare a constitutional right to physician assisted suicide.” The organizations council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs consistently condemns this practice. “Some suggest that doctors should become more knowledgeable on pain management and suffering, and explain different therapies to help patients improve. Opponents of the Death with Dignity Act claim that the act’s definition of a terminal illness is “unconstitutionally” vague. The opponents also claim that the act violates the first amendment. However, the DWDA is a “ Legitimate Policy Choice that does not violate any constitutional or statutory requirements.” Physician Assisted death that follow the act include terminal sedation, withholding/withdrawing life sustaining treatments or large amounts of pain medication that will lead to

An elderly Toronto man, of the age of 81, has died just 24 hours after a court affirmed his appeal to doctor assisted suicide. A.B. was a husband and grandfather who had been suffering from the advanced propelling stages of terminal lymphoma and was diagnosed in 2012. A.B. was bed-ridden and intolerable pain, despite being prescribed pain killers and other narcotics. A.B. appealed to the Supreme Court three months prior to his death, to fight for what he deemed to be right so fundamentally. To have the right to decide when one can no longer preserve through the torment of a disease and to be helped to death by a doctor, keeping in mind the end goal to go with tranquility and dignity. He was granted permission on Thursday, March 17,2016 from

As sad as it is for me to see this happen, I now understand that it is the circle of life in the medical field. There will be terminally ill patients that will seek years of treatment, but nothing will cure them properly, so they look to this sort of treatment as a last resort to put them out of their pain and misery. This type of treatment has rarely occurred since it became legal in 1994. Since then, 1327 patients in Oregon, 529 in Washington, and only 2 in Vermont have chosen this type of treatment (CNN Library, 2014). Although I will not be an influence towards any patient when they are making their decision, I will still be present in the building, and helping them with their paper work and insurance. The only influence I may have is on the doctors, while they are treating their patients, because ultimately everything they do must go through and administrator. While doing research, I read an astonishing article where “hospital administrators encourage their medical staffs to recommend physician-assisted suicide to hospital in-patients in order to cut down on costs” (Mehlman, 2015). This poses an ethical concern because this type of behavior and thinking is not expressing professional integrity. It is making a decision for the better economical well being of a hospital rather than for the

One’s body and life are one’s own to dispose as one sees fit. Everyone is entitled to the right to die concept, in that they can decline or accept life-sustaining treatments. However, this was a dispute in the case of Terri Schiavo where all three branches of government were involved to decide on whether they should keep her on life-prolonging measures or discontinue after she was left in a comatose state. After no sign of improvement for over two months, her diagnosis was changed to a persistent vegetative state leaving her life decisions in the hands of her husband, Michael. Michael argued that his wife would not have wanted the prolonged life support and even went as far as starting a petition to remove her feeding tube, which her parents

Ever since the emergence of the right to die concept, there has been many instances in which the cases have reached courts. Despite the numerous accounts of people attempting to have the right to die made justifiable, the rulings opposed any sort of justification to a right to die. The Nancy Cruzan case became more prevalent because of the growing number of people on medical procedures like Nancy Cruzan's. Amidst the growing concern over ending up similarly as Nancy Cruzan or being in a terminally ill state, movements and acts are being pushed in order to accommodate those that are suffering.

Significant advances in patient autonomy have been made in insisting the good and lawful right of rationally skilled patients to settle on choices about the course of their dying. This incorporates enhancing the techniques for the declaration of patients ' personality. It assists and makes it better for the family to comprehend when it is an ideal opportunity to settle on a choice. Sometimes the patient 's voice in medical basic leadership about forceful treatment in terminal sick conditions is not substantial because of their ailment. While doing my examination I read about Nancy Cruzan, and in this case where the US Supreme Court supported the state of Missouri 's privilege to require clear and inducing verification with respect to a patient 's desire to forego life-maintaining drugs. The consequence of that significant decision was a national outpouring of activity related to development mandates. It additionally incorporated the foundation of the administration Patient Self-Determination Act, which requires that specialist 's offices routinely teach patients about progress directives (Tilden, 1999).

In recent years, there have been many debates on whether or not it should be legal for physicians to aid in the death of incurable patients in the United States. The first big case leading to the “Right to Die” movement was in 1975, when a twenty-one year old girl named Karen Ann Quinlan was declared to be in a persistent vegetative state after ingesting Valium and alcohol while on a crash diet. Her parents requested that she be taken off of life support. The doctors refused, the parents took it to court, and she was ultimately taken off of her ventilator, though she did live for another nine years breathing on her own but with a feeding tube before passing away in 1985 (Nevdjon, Mayer 149). There were then more court cases, and Oregon passed

Healthcare professionals have the responsibility to save and preserve lives. Simultaneously, the patient has rights as well. The patient has a legal right to a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), in which is a legal order written in the hospital to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) in respect to the wishes of the patient. In this case, Mac’s legal rights were violated. The facility management made a decision based on his personal feelings. The facility Medical Doctor was at fault in denying Mac a Do Not Resuscitate Order.

CNN aricle entiled "Brain-dead Texas woman" tals about Marlise who was put on life support yet her family wanted the doctors to disconnet her due that she was legally dead. This is a different story from other where

But why would we want that, when noted scholar Sarah Palin insists that universal coverage would bring about “death panels?” It’s non-discriminatory: From an article I read written by Jasmine Jaksic, one woman did get to have an experience with Universal Healthcare during a marriage trip in Bled, Slovenia. During her wedding trip the bride to be began to have lower abdominal pain she was brought to a emergency room in a row called Jesenice. There she found out that she had a cyst which was benign but would need to be removed. The bride was sent home on painkillers because the doctor did not want to have to postpone her wedding for the operation. The next day the bride’s symptoms began to worsen and she needed to be rushed back to the hospital,

Despite its ratification, PAS is now facing opposition from religious groups and pro-life activists. For example, in Colorado, approximately one-third of the hospitals defy the law and refuse to give their patients the option of PAS. Among these are the Catholic faith-based healthcare systems that operate tens of hospitals and hundreds of clinics in Colorado, and federally administered health centers, which are forbidden under federal laws to end or aid in ending a patient’s life. Under federal regulations, Physician- Assisted Suicide is absolutely prohibited within the Veterans’ Health Administration and applies equally to states that have laws sanctioning physician- assisted suicide. Terminally-ill veterans can receive end-of-life care in hospices that are part of the VHA

I assume that will be their main battle cry in the upcoming election. By election time the majority of the people will be glad they can't have their insurance canceled when they get sick, that their children are covered until age 26, that benefit caps will be removed from new policies, that pre-existing conditions will not prevent children from obtaining insurance and that 'death panels' do not exist. The non-existence of death panels will no doubt come as a big surprise to Sarah Palin. Quoting Business Week, "Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, two hours after Obama signed the law, said Republicans would 'fight until this bill is repealed and replaced with common-sense ideas that solve our problems without dismantling the health-care system we have.'" When the Free-market Fails to Provide a Solution, Government Must Step In The Republicans had eight years under George Bush to come up with "common-sense ideas" to fix health-care for all and did nothing. With the exception of enacting the Medicare Drug Program for seniors in 2003, they were not interested in improving the plight of people without health insurance and completely ignored the steadily mounting numbers of people without health insurance, at least 48,000,000. They said they preferred

The autonomy of a competent patient is an issue not often debated in medical ethics. Refusal of unwanted treatment is a basic right, likened to the common law of battery, available to all people capable of a competent choice. These fundamental rules of medical ethics entered a completely new forum as medical technology developed highly effective life-sustaining care during the 20th century. Several watershed cases elucidated these emerging issues in the 1960’s and 70’s, none more effectively than that of Karen Ann Quinlan. Fundamentally, this case established that a once-competent patient without the possibility of recovery could have their autonomy exercised by a surrogate in regard to the