The Medical Profession 's Compliance

Autonomy can override beneficence when life-support is withdrawn (Prozgar, 2010). In addition, when a physician takes the position of withdrawing life-supporting equipment, the principle of non-maleficence is severed. Since helping patients die violates the physician’s virtue of duty to save lives,” distributed justice is served by releasing a room in the intensive care unit for a patient who has a higher chance of resolving their medical problems (Pozgar, G. 2010). There are so many inflict fuzzy gray areas and ideas about conflicting DNR policies that political disputes had to go to the courts to sort out the issues legally.

The topic of end-of-life care may seem daunting and uncomfortable, and yet most individuals do have unique desires and concerns regarding their provision for the future. Providing the opportunity for that communication, the advance directive and POLST forms allow an individual to explicitly state their wishes before the future. Developed to lessen the apprehensions concerning patients undergoing any extensive and unwanted measures to preserve life at any cost, these medical directives lighten the decision-making burden for physicians and families alike and help comply with the patient’s utmost end-of-life wishes.

Death is a touchy enough subject for people; add in the idea of assisted suicides and there’s an uproar in society. Euthanasia or physician assisted suicide is a very controversial topic in our society today. Physician assisted suicide by definition is “suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent (Merriam-Webster). There are two modes of looking at assisted suicides; either it’s seen as an absurd immoral decision to take away the life of someone or it’s seen as a logical and peaceful release from pain and misery. There’s this idea that asking a healthcare provider to help you end your life is unfair and unnecessary, no matter how much a person is suffering suicide is not justified. People fear patients changing their minds, physicians being severely impacted by this, and families not agreeing with the decision making it hard to cope. On the other side people believe that it’s freedom of choice to choose to be medically assisted with a suicide; this is a right the patient has. Some believe if you’re in pain and dying why should you be forced to stay in a painful state of life. Freedom of choice versus life isn’t ours to take away. If you were in a terminally ill patients position, what would you do?

This paper concerns the ethical basis for advance directives, or “Living Wills”; the value of these advance directives to the patients, their families; and the authorities that these advance directives give the above mentioned interested parties.

There are two types of advance directives: a Living Will and the Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care. A Living Will requires a witness or be notarized and consists of a directive that instruct the acting physicians to not utilize medical interventions in an instance that the patient is unable to make their immediate medical decision. The Living Will is the oldest form of advanced directives, requires a patient be terminally ill and it states that its interpretation is only to be assumed by the patient and their physician, there is never to be any family influence or interpretation of a Living Will. Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care is also witnessed or notarized and identifies an ‘agent’ to make health care decisions if the signer is unable to make their own decision. An agent is an individual that the patient chooses with great care, due to the amount of power/authority that is assumed to making such decisions. The Durable Power of Attorney does not require that a patient be terminally ill and is interpreted by the identified ‘agent’. There have also been known to be hybrid documents that combine elements of a Living Will and Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care that acts as an Advanced Directive. (Advanced Directives.,

Every seriously ill patient and their family should have decided the following issues: proxy, resuscitation, hospitalization, and specific treatments. Every seriously ill person needs to have pointed out a person to speak on their behalf when they get too sick to do so. A “proxy” can be filled out at any hospital or nursing home granting “power of attorney” to a loved one to be able to make decisions. A person

Maintaining life support systems against the patient’s wish is considered unethical both by the medical profession and the laws. Supposing a patient values the right to defer or withhold care, the same patient must have the right and privilege to end his life in order to prevent intolerable pain. The argument, which holds that family members could misuse the physician-assisted suicide rights in order to inherit wealth, are misplaced (Diekstra, 2008). This is attributed to the fact that even in the absence of physician-assisted suicide, members of a family could remove life support systems that can undoubtedly lead to the premature death of the

There is also debate as to whether or not non-participating states should make legislation to legalize this life ending option. Those who are against legalization of physician assisted death often present with the arguments that legalization will lead to abuse of the practice and consequently harsh treatments of our nation’s sickest patients. They also argue that it is an unethical practice in which mortals are “playing God” and determining where the line between life and death is. This group also establishes that physician assisted death is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath in which doctors vow to “do no harm” to their patients. Additionally, they maintain the argument that all human lives have value from the time of conception until natural death and allowing physician assisted death would be a premature limitation of an individual’s life. The opposition, however, says that physician assisted death is a dignified treatment for hopeless patients whose only alternative treatment is prolonged suffering until death. Additionally, they argue that allowing doctors to participate in physician assisted death upholds the Hippocratic Oath because forcing a patient to endure undue suffering against their will is in fact doing harm. Also, a major argument states

This film explains the legal role of advance directives in end of life issues. An advance directive is “a written document directing how medical decisions are to be made in the future when the patient lacks decisional capacity and is unable to decide and choose” (Hanlon, End of Life Issues, Slide 28, Bullet 1). All three of the cases demonstrate the importance in filling out some form of directive. When there is nothing to go off of, it makes decisions extremely tough for families and medical providers. Having legal documentation of patient wishes helps understand what treatments they would or would not consent to. In cases like

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.

Institutions create compliance programs to lessen penalties and fines of the fraud and abuse that can occur within a health care organization. A compliance program ensures that all employees know the law and regulations inside their specific department. If an organization didn’t have a compliance program there would be tons of fraud happening within their facility. Additionally, tons of money would be stolen from government health insurance companies and private

In addition, the legality of living wills is still being challenged in about 25 percent of all cases, decisions are made -– by family or physician – that are contrary to the patient’s wishes as stated in their living will (i.e.

The advance directive, or living will, is one way of circumventing the ethical dilemma of Quinlan, as it is essentially a set of choices by the competent patient if faced with different hypothetical circumstances. Patients can thus feel comfortable knowing that their competent wishes have been documented and can be easily interpreted in case of catastrophe. However, the authority of advance directives is a topic hotly debated amongst medical ethicists (see Advance Directive Authority). Arguments against directives state that not all factors are considered by the person creating the advance order. Also, in some cases of severe dementia, it is argued that the personal identity of the author is no longer intact and therefore has no authority over the treatment of the “new” person. The debate on this topic is extremely complex, but many of today’s cases are decided on an individual basis, with the directive often being upheld.

As American citizens, we are protected by individual liberties and the Bill of Rights. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is simple; it is to ensure that the American citizens are guaranteed a substantial number of personal freedoms. What if a person’s dying wish was to die on his or her own terms? Dying on peoples own terms, seems like it would be a constitutional freedom, but sadly, it is not. Image a loved one, a friend, or a family member struck with immeasurable pain faced with a terminal and intolerable illness. This patient would have to go through agonizing pain to fight a battle they cannot win, for the disease has already won. When faced with pain and death, neither the government, nor doctors should have a say other than the patients themselves when choosing to end their life. The decision or ‘the Right To Die’ is solely for that person to make. The decision to end one’s life should be a personal freedom.

The essay will discuss the ETHICS IN MEDICINE : The Relationship Between Law and Medical Ethics: