Should Terminally-Ill Patients Continue To Receive Available Medical Treatment

Bellevue hospital in new york city has spoke out about this increasing problem. In charge of intensive care at Bellevue is Dr. Ken Berger. Currently he is treating a 72 year old patient who has problems such as Hepatic Failure, Renal Failure, Cardiac Failure, He has no blood pressure and he is septic. This patient of his has shown no indication of getting better and seems to be increasingly getting worse. This man being treated has no chance of survival. Berger's patient is suffering and cannot function normally. In 1990 the supreme court passed a law aimed at stopping prolonging life treatments. However New york lawmakers Have twisted the decision to make it actually more difficult to stop prolonging life treatments. This law requires consent

First of all, terminally ill patients have the right to decide what happens with their life. Of recent suicide and attempted suicide have been their bodies are shutting down. Their organs stop working and they cant do everyday actitities without seviere pain. According to the federal constitution, every citizen is entitled to life liberty are the persuit of happieness. Due to court case Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, the Supreme Court established that the due process clause protects a patient's liberty to refuse medical treatment. According to that statement, this means a patient can refuse medical attention and ultimately die (Is There a Constitutional..). Not alowing a patient this right would be unconstitutional. What

In the article “ Omg I'm dying” author Wood Jabari Wood startes, A person who knows he has no hope of living are in tremendous amount of pain and stress and are most likely to fail in recovering and should let them die. The simple statement that a terminaly illed person should be let go is absurd. What this writer don’t understand is that people who are in pain wants a cure and it motivates themselves to keep pushing forward. A person can be in a massice amount of pain but that does not tell whether a person should give up or keep fighting. Although pain can affect peoples’ mind, it can also be

Terminally ill patients should have the right to die. I support their decision they know what’s best for themselves. I support this legislation because I’ve lost two family members to colon cancer. My grandpa when I was younger but don’t remember to much about him. Also, my uncle I’ve lost that I do remember everything that has happened to him. I was in high school when my uncle was diagnosed with colon cancer. He was a big guy, very tan, black hair, and was a very happy person he was the best. After a few weeks, have passed he dropped so much weight I couldn’t even recognize him anymore.

Terminally ill patients should be allowed to do whatever they wish, for they are going to die anyway. If they want to cut that string a little earlier than the scheduled and having to deal with that pain, then they should be allowed that medication that will end their life in a painless way. It is selfish to keep someone who is going through so much pain, that they want to die, alive and forcing them to ‘just deal with it’ as if it was nothing. As if they were not already going to die. We, the United States, ‘put down’ 2.4 million healthy cats and dogs every thirteen seconds, so if we can kill so many animals because they have no home or are overpopulated, like we are, then should we not be allowed to ‘put down’ our own life without much of a problem?

A patient choosing to terminate their treatment leads to letting life take its course and letting the terminal disease invade their body until they are no longer able to function and die naturally. Patients often choose to this option so that they are able to enjoy what portion of their life they have left through spending time with their family members and loved ones, traveling, or pursuing something they enjoy as opposed to spending their remaining days in a hospital receiving treatment when at that point it's often likely that they will pass away soon anyways.

Critically ill patients should be allowed to end their life because they have freedom to choose how to end their life.

There are new treatments being tested, but all treatment is expensive, and a good attorney is likely necessary to secure the compensation to pay for these. Ultimately hospice care will be required and again compensation money should be kept back for this. Ultimately, in spite of all the treatment given, it is palliative care that will make the last days of the patient bearable, as will the help and support of the family, and this is what compensation can fund.

Should a person have the right to die when facing a terminal illness? Imagine that a loved one has just been diagnosed with a terminal illness. What is the first thing people think of? How much time do they have left and is there any way to extend that time? That is a normal reaction because we want as much time with our loved ones as possible. Now, put yourself in that same situation is that what you would want if it were you facing a terminal illness? A person should have the right to refuse treatment and or receive life ending chemical assistance when facing a terminal illness, because some terminal illness can greatly reduce quality of life, second a person has the right to choose their own health care and finally a person should have the right

B. It is important to take into consideration what the person desires. Although it may seem too extreme to end your life, we are not feeling what the ill person is feeling so we cannot judge their decisions.

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

If there was absolutely no possibility of recovery, and the patient was suffering nearly everyday, the avenue of assisted suicide should be presented and given merit. With no possible way to avoid problems, issues arise for every possible situation, as assisted suicide is sometimes viewed as the easy way out. Large amounts of planning, assisted suicide by no means is easy though the drugs are roughly one hundred dollars (ProCon). The patient must come to terms with what will happen if they do not take this path, and also assess what will happen if they go this way. Pain and suffering could follow them around until they die or they could leave their family on a good note. Through assisted suicide, they could spend time with their family

When a patient’s life seems to be nearing its end, it is generally felt that the morally best approach is to try a new intervention, continue all treatments, attempt an experimental course of action, in short, do something. (Welie, 2014). This is the time which healthcare professional need to do everything and use every technology they have to sustain patient’s life. Life sustaining treatment it has been proven to be one of the most difficult and common ethical dilemma is in most developed countries. American Medical Association define Life sustaining treatment as any treatment that serves to prolong life without reversing the underlying medical condition. Life sustaining treatment may include but not

Unfortunately, the cost of medical expenses is not cheap. However, how can you put a price on someone’s life. To stop treatment because of finances would be a decision that would need to be carefully thought through from every direction. To grow old without regrets would always be the goal. Consequently, wiping out your family would not be the goal that any person would want to achieve. I believe that it is acceptable to stop treatment if you feel that is the right path for quality of life. Moreover, it would be devastating to a loved one to think that they were a part of the equation for ending someone’s life. These videos by Dr. Scott Rae have brought to my mind many of questions about death that I had not considered before. I will still continue to believe that God would give grace and show Himself mightily when His child effectually, fervently, calls for help.

A quote I found by an anonymous person was “Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same”. I understand that their aren’t unlimited ventilators out there for everyone, so if a patient is terminal don't waste the resources that could be used for patients that has a chance to live but we need to at least give people a chance. It is a hard decision but providing free medical care for everyone is the right thing to do.