The Bioethics Of Prolonging Life Of The Terminally Ill

I recognize that modern medical technology has made possible the artificial prolongation of my life beyond natural limits. I do not wish to artificially prolong the process of my dying if continued health care will not improve my prognosis for recovery and my death is likely to occur within several months, or if I require life support as the result of an irreversible condition, even if that life support might prolong my life for a sustained period. Therefore, I do not want efforts

Death is in a sense inevitable, we can’t escape from it. In today’s day in age, we are living longer than our parents and our grandparents due to medical technology. But there are so many ethical issues and complications that go hand and hand with death. There are two forms of death, cardiac and brain-oriented. Determining these two forms of death, along with the determined time of death is vital, simply because we don’t want to treat a living person as if they were dead. With so many issues concerning death, we have to protect those who are on the brink of death or terminally ill and can’t speak for themselves, but allowing them to make preparations for the future. Advanced directives makes this possible,

A person who is dying of a terminal illness is faced with only one certainty; they will die from this disease. A doctor can say roughly the amount of time that a patient has, but they exact date and level of pain is hard to determine. Many may look to a physician for the answer on if they should/shouldn’t choose PAS, however, the only role a physician plays is giving the medical diagnosis and working with the patient to get what the patient feels is the best option. Therefore, the decision the patient makes doesn’t make the physician a moral guide, but rather a person doing their job. The last big decision people who are terminally ill have is when/how to die and it has to be their own and it has to be respected.

Keeping a person alive by excessive treatment might devastate the family and make the dying suffer tremendously in the end. “Advance medical technology that seems to one person a godsend, extending life, may seem to another a curse that only prolong dying. Dignity can be devalued amid technology focused solely on the biological organism.”

I do not want my life to be prolonged if (1) I have an incurable and irreversible condition that will result in my death within a relatively short time, (2) I become unconscious and, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, I will not regain consciousness, or (3) the likely risks and burdens of treatment would outweigh the expected benefits.

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.

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

They were the subjects of public disputes with family members, court systems, medical professionals, the media, and society at large. Terri Schiavo, Nancy Cruzan and Karen Ann Quinlan; their names are synonymous with permanent vegetative state (PVS). The amazing technological advancements in modern medicine has been credited with keeping persons alive who in times past would have died, therefore this is remarkable for countless families. In the cases of the Quinlan’s, the Cruzan’s and many like them, families members find it unbearable to witness loved ones who linger indefinitely in PVS with little or no chance for recovery. There are many like Terri Schiavo’s parents, who value the lives of their love ones no matter how limited their

On November 1, 2014 Californian resident, the 29 year-old Brittany Maynard died. What was so special about her, many may ask. Brittany death was not like any other death, she made the decision to end her life after been diagnose with a terminal brain cancer. Knowing her fate was seal, she decided to move to Oregon which was one of the state that enable in 1997 the “Death with Dignity Act”, to die with dignity. Brittany did not want to subject herself and her family to purposeless prolong pain and suffering at the hand of an incurable disease. (John)

Nobody can escape death. It is inevitable. It can arrive when one is old and fragile, content with the life they have lived, or it can jump out from around a corner when one is on their way home from celebrating their twenty-first birthday. It has no set schedule or due date for those to plan around. Years ago, when medical interventions where still fictional, death carried out its own course of action however it desired. As medicine has progressed, many life-saving treatments have been developed as well as life-ending interventions. End-of-life decisions generate many ethical issues that policymakers, medical professionals, and patients and family members have never encountered before. One such question is whether “palliative sedation” is

I agree with Dr. Warraich in regards to his statement that we enter a phase of dying. Some would even say that our life, in general, is one long phase leading to death and our experiences are mere steps along the way. He mentions an experience where he had a patient telling him to “kill me”, and this probably was a painful experience. As with any professional career, I would hope he had some training that would have prepared him for that. Prolonging life is a good thing as long as maintaining the quality of life is achieved at the same time. His book mentions that sometimes extending life burdens the family and doctors with difficult decisions. An individual that has planned out their living will and health care power of attorney accordingly

1) Patients have the right to make their own informed decisions about if and how they die. When a chronically ill patient decides life is no longer worth living because of the insurmountable pain they are in, who are we to tell them differently? There are cases where attempts to cure are doing more harm than good, not only mentally and physically to the patient, but emotionally to his family and loved ones as well.

This is the case for many medical conditions; whether the patient would have a longer life span if they did not take the risk of having treatment, or whether they would live for longer with a better quality of life if they did have treatment. This decision has to be made with careful assessment of the given factors and the patient’s situation, by both the medical staff and the patient themselves.

The ethical issue is Euthanasia, there are many groups that support or oppose this issue. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The different viewpoints are based around whether it is humane to assist someone in dying and whether it should be illegal for someone to assist the death of someone who has a terminal illness and are suffering incurable pain. Groups that oppose the issue generally believe that it is inhumane to end someone 's life early, these groups generally believe these people should be given care and as much comfort as possible until their last days. Groups that support the issue generally believe that if someone has lost their mental state or are suffering unbearable pain that cannot be cured, that they should be allowed the option of euthanasia because it is inhumane to make someone suffer unbearable pain if they do not need to. An ethical issue brings systems of morality and principles into conflict, ethical issues are more subjective and opinionated and generally cannot be solved with facts, laws and truth. Euthanasia is an ethical issue because there are two equally unacceptable options. It is considered wrong

Ethics, in medicine, is described as applying one’s morals and values to healthcare decisions (Fremgen 2012). It requires a critical-thinking approach that examines important considerations such as fairness for all patients, the impact of the decision on society and the future repercussions of the decision (Fremgen 2012). According to Fremgen (2012), bioethics concerns ethical issues discussed in the perspective of advanced medical technology. Goldman and Schafer (2012) state bioethical issues that arise in medical practice include antibiotics, dialysis, transplantation, intensive care units, issues of genetics, reproductive choices and termination of care. In clinical practice the most common issues revolve around informed consent, termination of life-sustaining treatments, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, and conflicts of interest (Goldman, Schafer 2012).