The Doctrine Of Double Effect

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.

It would also be important to consider the rules and regulations regarding organ transplants for this particular situation. Although, these doctors were trying to do the right thing for one patient they also needed to realize that the death row patient was still a patient and deserved the same rights as any patient that enters the hospital.

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

Ethical dilemmas for all three cases are is it murder by assisting these three patients no longer suffer. Would there be pain and suffering involved directly by their actions? Are they doing the right thing by helping these people

Medical regulators in every province have issued detailed guidelines that doctors must follow to help suffering patients end their lives and most of these guidelines impose safeguards. It is required that at least two doctors must agree that a patient meets the eligibility

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule utilitarianism.

Physician assisted death, often referred to as death with dignity or euthanasia, is a practice that is debated globally and practiced limitedly. It is when a physician helps a patient with a terminal condition carry out their elective death, usually through prescriptions or other medical means. The debate regarding this controversial practice has many sides, one being the defense of the sanctity of life. This claim operates on the premise that human lives have innate value as determined by God, and therefore physician assisted death is an unjust practice and an invalidation of the worth of human life. However, as demonstrated by the philosopher Sartre, it becomes evident that each individual creates and determines their own significance,

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

There are some ethical dilemmas evident in this scenario, starting with an End of life dilemma, refusal of care and informed consent.“End of

The need for organ donations creates another ethical dilemma for Emergency Room Physicians. “Obtaining organs from emergency room patients has long been considered off-limits in the United States because of ethical and logistical concerns” (Stein, 2010). The shortage of organs available for transplant has caused many patients die while waiting. A pilot project from the federal government “has begun promoting an alternative that involves surgeons taking organs, within minutes, from patients whose hearts have stopped beating but who have not been declared brain-dead” (Stein, 2010). “The Uniform Determination of Death Act

Traditionally, the physician was expected to use all of their talents and training in an effort to save the life of their patient, no matter the odds. More recently, the physician’s role has been redefined to preserve the autonomy of the patient. Now physicians must give life saving care only in so far and to the degree desirous of the competent patient.

This provision takes the control out of the doctor’s hands and gives it strictly to the patient, preventing anyone from taking the life of another.

continue full treatment in accordance with patient’s desires or side with physicians and not intubate patient) we can reasonably argue that, under Utilitarian grounds, the act of not intubating her would be morally acceptable and ought to be the course of action that is followed. Such reasoning lies on the fact that a higher level of utility (happiness) would be achieved. In other words, because Utilitarianism determines acts as ethical or morally suspect based on consequences, the end results are what should be considered in who should decide and where should the line be drawn. That is, the concept of “maximizing the greatest good” is important in solving this case

Consider the following, a man by the name of Joe is dying of Aids, due to the severity of his condition he asked his doctor to give him a lethal dose of

With major advancement in medical treatments, it is now possible to keep a patient alive, which would not have been possible in former times. This has made end of life issue one of the most controversial issues in healthcare. Medical improvements have set the stage for ethical and legal controversies about not only the patient’s rights but also the family’s rights and the medical profession’s proper role. It is critical that any decision made in such situation is ethical and legal to preserve the rights of the patient and also protect the healthcare institution involved. It is very important when making decisions to discontinue treatments to make sure all other alternatives have been explored.