Personhood: the Central Question in Medical Ethics

Though ethics committees have been helpful, scores of physician-patient disagreements end up in the U.S. court system with inconsistent results. The states adopted individual “statutes regulating DNR orders and their provisions vary in analysis throughout the U.S.” (Bishop, Brothers, Perry & Ahmad, 2010). One ethical dilemma that is constant in emergency rooms, the intensive care unit and terminally ill persons is a futility of treatment. In the case of CPR/DNR, New York State wanted to enact a law that describes the decisive responsibilities of the patient, and the family or surrogate, and physician. “In April 2003, the New-York Attorney General asserted that the DNR law would require a physician to obtain a consent of the patient’s health care surrogate before entering a DNR order, even when the physician

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

Euthanasia is a controversial topic regarding whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be further legalized. Euthanasia is the act of a medical doctor injecting a poison into a patient 's body in order to kill them. Some argue that euthanasia should be legalized to put people out of pain and misery. However, others argue that some people with terminal illnesses would do anything to live longer and believe that it is a selfish and cowardly act. Euthanasia is disputable because of the various ethical issues, including, but not limited to: murder and suicide illegality, the Hippocratic Oath, and medical alternatives. As someone who has had many traumatic experiences and who wants to become a doctor, I am very passionate about the well-being of my future patients and the responsibility to do no harm to them. For these lawful, logical, and personal reasons, euthanasia should not be legalized.

The ethical principles for nurses to practice with beneficence and no maleficence. This legal battle between Terri Schiavo’s husband and her family was an ethical debate between continuing artificial life or remove her feeding tube by the request of her husband. Using the theories of utilitarianism and deontology can be applied or considered in making the most ethically correct resolution. The cases are very complex and raise many moral and ethical issues. The cases have brought awareness to society of “the importance of discussing end-of-life issues with family members and underscores how an advance directive, a living will and/or durable power of attorney for health care, are a healthcare proxy clarifies and provides evidence of the wishes of an individual regarding end-of-life decisions. Terri Schiavo should impress upon laypersons and professionals alike the uncertainty of the context in which issues of continuation and termination are argued ethically. Nobody knows what Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted. She left no advance directive and in its absence her husband says one thing and her parents

Being brain, dead the doctors can “pull the plug” on the consent of the person's family. So why can’t your doctor help you to your paradise, save you from your pain, and save you the hardship of counting those blocks living off the machine? Brain dead is the same as dead. “While many believe that death does not happen until the heart stops beating and the lungs stop breathing, these functions can be maintained by machines, but the brain will not be able to do that once the machines are turned off’ ( Betancourt). Even if the brain is still active, you're still not fully living if the machine is making you carry on. Why can pulling the plug by family’s consent be legal but not asking to be put out of your misery with a physician-assisted suicide?

Death, dying and other ethical dilemmas are issues that all Intensive Care Units (ICUs) throughout the world have to face and address. In the Current Opinion in Critical Care, Vol 16, No 6, December 2010, p. 640, Dixon-Woods and Bosk, writing on the topic of “Death, dying and other ethical dilemmas” under the journal’s section of ‘Ethical, legal and organizational issues in the ICU’, have stated that “Recent ethnographic work suggests that ethical dilemmas associated with end-of-life care in ICU clearly persist, even if clinicians are now more open about patients’ chances of surviving. An Australian study identified how decisions and actions made

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.

Everyday, healthcare professionals are faced with ethical dilemmas in their workplace. These ethical dilemmas need to be addressed in order to provide the best care for the patient. Healthcare professionals have to weigh their own personal beliefs, professional beliefs, ethical understandings, and several other factors to decide what the best care for their patient might be. This is illustrated in Mrs. Smith’s case. Mrs. Smith is an 85 year old who has suffered from a large stroke that extends to both of her brains hemispheres which has left her unconscious. She only has some brain stem reflexes and requires a ventilator for support. She is unable to communicate how she wishes to proceed with her healthcare. Mrs. Smith’s children, Sara and Frank have different views regarding their mother’s plan of care. The decision that needs to be made is whether to prolong Mrs. Smith’s life, as Sara would like to do, or stop all treatments and care, as Frank feels his mother would want. In the healthcare field, there are situations similar to this case that happen daily where moral and ethical judgment is necessary to guide the decision that would be best for the patient. The purpose of this paper is to explore and discuss, compare and contrast the personal and professional values, ethical principles, and legal issues regarding Mrs. Smith’s quality of life and further plan of care.

As an administrator I would need to take into consideration the patient’s autonomy, autonomy is recognizing an individual’s right to make his/her own decisions about what is best for them regarding their health care (Pozgar, 2012). The patient’s rights always should be considered before any decisions are made by any other family members. In this scenario it is clear that the patient is unable to make any decisions, the patient has suffered a serious brain damage, and although it is not complete brain death, we must determine how to proceed.

Death and life is a complicated issue that is discussed in many fields of philosophy. Ethics is a broad field of philosophy that has taken death into consideration and made it a huge concern and specifically in bio medical ethics. Also, death is a huge issue that has many aspects and subtitles. This specific argument sheds light on patients with cases of brain death or terminal brain failure or any kind of medically confirmed brain death or loss in function of the central nervous system. I think that any patient with such conditions, which will be of Corse under the help of nutrition machines, must not continue what is called his/her life. To rephrase my opinion, an unconscious patient with brain or central nervous

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

When a tragedy strikes, the family is already pushed to make difficult decisions about their injured loved one. Possible decisions may include, donating viable organs, donating the body to science, and in the worst case scenario, funeral details. But what if the tragedy involves a pregnant brain dead mother? The family should have the choice of keeping the mother on life support until the baby is developed enough for a cesarean section can be performed, or to take the mother off of life support to end the suffering. Leaving the choice to the family would make the situation possibly less painful. If the hospital takes the mother off life support against the family’s wishes, that choice by the hospital would be considered very unethical.

In current times we have made many technological advances that have boosted the medical productivity in hospitals. However, the rapid development of medicine is far from being a long term resolve for many health issues. We have a plethora of people whose quality of life is very low and has no chance of improving. During these situations allowing the person to end their life via euthanasia should be allowed. I will argue that Euthanasia is morally permissible in some cases because there are several moral justifications that argue for ending one’s life.

Although a medical professional’s job is to save lives, they note the positives in euthanasia to end suffering. However, there could be other reasons. According to Soapboxie, some look at this decision as clearing up space, time, and money for those whose are capable of being saved (1). This is a horrible idea to even cross someone’s mind, but this thought comes around. No life should be taken to clear up time, space, or money. Even though the medical professionals may not directly come out and say this, the patient, in their vulnerable state, could look at it this way. Even though the process is long to attain assisted suicide, the patient may feel as if they must complete this action to stop themselves from being a burden. The patient must generate this decision on their own, but the shape they are in, could truly affect their decision, which is why numerous people find it wrong.

"I think those who have a terminal illness and are in great pain should have the right to choose to end their lives, and those who help them should be free from prosecution," British cosmologist Stephen Hawking told the BBC. Live and Death is directly or indirectly controlled by universal energy to whom we call God. A person who is suffering from the severe brain damage, his/her body system is partially working but brain is almost dead has universal right to live till his/her last breath but, as human being we can see him/her suffering. Our brain has total control over the Central Neurone System, every sense and movement has been controlled by directly or indirectly by brain.