The movie Wit exemplifies how vulnerable patients in an outpatient and hospital setting can often be treated unfairly. Vivian is an English professor of 17 century (John Dunn) poetry. She was newly diagnosed with stage four metastatic ovarian cancer. Her doctor, Dr. Kelekian has explained to her that the best choice of treatment would be experimental chemotherapy. He offered her no alternatives or second opinions and made the decision right then and there that she should do the experimental study because it was “the strongest treatment they could offer her.” The main stockholders in the movie I would like to focus on Dr.Kelekian and Jason. The way in which he acted towards Vivian was unjust and he was very much in the wrong in countless situations. The movie Wit displays many ethical issues and dilemmas that often happen in healthcare, the physician and resident acted in many ways that were morally wrong.
When looking at this dilemma through multifaceted lens I see many different sides that on can pick. I think the issue is tough but there is a clear picture in my head that the physician had made the decision to advise Vivian to do this experimental treatment for his own personal gain. I do not believe that Jason or Dr. Kelekian were thinking of the best interest of their patient. The physician’s role allowed him to have much to gain in terms of research but he did not have any person gain or loss with the death of Vivian. The only major impact was on the nurse who had
In the movie Wit, Professor Bearings is diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer. She spends her days in the hospital with her nurse, doctor, and the doctor’s assistant (Ms. Bearing’s former student) undergoing aggressive chemotherapy. Although the movie was good, there were many scenes that made me cringe. Throughout the entire movie, the medical staff used non-therapeutic communication and were unethical toward their patient. They made Professor Bearings feel inferior, pushed medical treatment without considering her thoughts and feelings, and never explained exactly what was going on. I felt empathy while watching Professor Bearings go through her last days being treated the way she was.
We came to this decision because we felt that if a few professional psychiatrist can render him mentally competent than he should be allowed to make his own decisions because it is moral. This is moral because people should be allowed to do what they want with their body, and as Cowart says it is, “the right to control your own body is a right you’re born with…” (Cowart 2). However, this is refuted when that person cannot make rational decisions because that person would be mentally incompetent. People that are mentally incompetent are incapable of making decisions that are in their best interest. We also discussed his mother and how all she cared about is for him to receive treatment which we thought was a bit selfish. This is a typical parental perspective considering that parents do not want to outlive their children. However, she should have sought out what was best for him and what he was going to be happy with and not her. As a group we also felt that he should have received better pain treatment especially since Cowart found out later that they could have done more for his treatment. If someone is in as much pain as he was and when a doctor is confronted with the request to die, that doctor should be doing everything he or she can to bring down the pain.
In the case of Jani McMath, her parents, family, the court, as well as the medical staff, are all faced with the ethical dilemma of whether or not to pull the plug. Who has her best interest in mind? How do we know? We would assume her family because they are the closest ones to her, but the truth is that McMath is incapable of making the decision for herself; therefore, whether her life is preserved or not is left in the hands of others. She could have wanted the plugged pulled; then again, she could have wanted her family to be strong and continue to fight for her life.
Even though the law is only in few states it can be known to those who believe in liberty and in freedom at making end of life decisions. Rd. Kevorkian’s invention of his machine increased confusion about whether he was assisting suicides or weather he was actively participating in helping patients who were suffering from an illness. His suicide machine was designed out of house hold items and parts that he had found at home e and garden stores. His machine involved 3 liquids and a timer, once a patient was hooked up on the machine the patient could pull the button and start the flow of drugs into the human body and system, this kind of involvement serves a point as Rd. Kevorkian served in prison a sentence that was 25 years or more but was released after 8 years continuing his death mission he died at the age of 83. The fact that people went to him because they knew he could help them with any possible matter of the patient having the right to die was automatically the best for them, people deserve to die at peace and make decisions for themselves and not the government deciding for them. Suffering in pain is not right. The death with dignity law should be established in the whole United States. Its only fair if somone who is dying has that option to choos for themselves, even if their young its them who wish to take that choice and decision but the fact that only few
Suicide is one person’s personal decision; physician-assisted suicide is a patient who is not capable of carrying the task out themselves asking a physician for access to lethal medication. What people may fail to see however is that the physician is not the only healthcare personnel involved; it may include, but is not limited to, a physician, nurse, and pharmacist. This may conflict with the healthcare worker’s own morals and there are cases in which the patient suffers from depression, or the patient is not receiving proper palliative care. Allowing physician-assisted suicide causes the physician to become entangled in an ethical and moral discrepancy and has too many other issues surrounding it for it to be legal.
“A serial mercy killer” (The Right To Die, 80). This is what some would define what Kevorkian did. Kevorkian, however does not feel this way. He performs his acts for the greater good in his eyes. However, he never hesitated to try any other treatments that could result in the patient’s improved health, whether it be antibiotics, or even experimental drug maintenance programs (The Right To Die, 82). He feels that medically assisted suicide is an essential option to those that are incurable and dying (The Right To Die, 83). Kevorkian’s main concern for his terminal patients was their comfort and confidence in their decision. He explains the death his patient’s experienced as being “like a painless heart attack in a deep sleep”(The Right To Die,
“…She’s somethin’ of a cunt, ain’t she Doc?” Although Milos Foreman’s character, Randle McMurphy (Jack Nicholson), put his opinion of Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher) in the most vulgar of terms, he was not so far from the truth. In the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975), Nurse Ratched’s treatment and care of the patients was unethical when compared to the standards one would expect of a health care administrator. She used control over her patients to ensure order, without regard to the feelings and concerns of the patients. This issue is presented by the director, Milos Foreman, through symbolism, characterization and scenes. This, in turn, determines how the director wants us, as viewers, to feel about the issue.
All medical providers have a duty to protect the health and dignity of their patients. Even if that is the intention of the provider, specific ethical dilemmas in healthcare may arise making it difficult for the provider to make an ethically appropriate choice. Wit, directed by Mike Nichols, takes the viewer through the healthcare of Dr. Vivian Bearing, an English professor, as she embarks on an eight-month experimental treatment to hopefully cure her stage IV ovarian cancer. As Dr. Bearing undergoes this treatment, ethical issues arise regarding her healthcare that compromises her well-being and dignity. George D. Pozgar points out that ethics is concerned with values relating to human conduct that focuses on the rightness and wrongness of actions, as well as the goodness and badness of motives and ends.1 It is clear in the film that the actions taken by the medical providers, violated ethical principles within the scope of health care such as patient dignity and respect, patient autonomy, and consent to research/treatment.
Is physician assisted suicide ethically justified? Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is defined as ending one’s own life by taking a fatal dosage of a substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician (MedicineNET.com, 2015). PAS is a very sensitive and controversial topic that raises many moral and ethical questions. While some feel that a person should be able to die with dignity and under their own terms, others feel that this is not a choice we can ethically make. PAS recently made national headlines when Brittany Maynard, a twenty-nine year old woman diagnosed with stage IV glioblastoma, went public with her plan to end her own life under Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act that was passed in 1997. Maynard legally received a prescription from her physician for a lethal dose of barbiturates and decided to end her life own life instead of suffering the painful death that loomed in her near future. She ended her own life on November, 3, 2014 with her family by her side (Durando, 2014). There are many moral issues that surrounded Maynard’s decision and whether or not PAS is ethical, however it is important to understand both sides of the debate to truly get the entire picture of the complexity of this issue before making the determination if physician-assisted suicide is ethically justified.
The film WIT, produced by Simon Bosanquet, clearly defines poor bedside manner in all levels of medicine, from the radiologist who performed the x-ray to the physicians in charge of the patient’s care. The film is based on a seventeenth century poet professor, Vivian Bearing, who gets diagnosed with stage IV ovarian cancer that has already metastasized. Professor Bearing goes through intense series of experimental chemotherapy agents that are detrimental to her health, yet everyone in the medical team seems to ask the question, “how are you feeling today?” In reality no one seems to really show true interest to what she is going through. The film portrays a lack of empathy for Professor Bearing, giving a sense of loneliness and hopelessness. The professors’ rights seem to be taken from her and the medical professional fail to treat her with the dignity and respect she deserves.
Physician assisted suicide is a topic that promotes debates from all sides. At the core of the physician assisted suicide debate is the idea that people should have the right to commit suicide if they choose to. There are those who feel human beings should have complete control over what happens to their bodies. Then there are those who feel we should strive to save life at all costs. When you add in the idea of a physician who has sworn to do no harm helping a person to end their life, the debate gets even more complicated. One opponent of Physician assisted suicide is Richard Doerflinger. Doerflinger in his article, Assisted Suicide: Pro-Choice or Anti-Life?, uses the Utilitarian theory of the greater good to explain how the slippery slope idea means physician assisted suicide will ultimately bring about more harm than good. On the other side of the debate Anthony Back, Robert Baker, et al. defend the rights of individuals to choose to end their life with the help of a physician based on a patient’s right to self-govern.
Brittany Maynard brought up a good argument when she said, “I would not tell anyone else that he or she should choose death with dignity. My question is: Who has the right to tell me that I don’t deserve this choice?” (Slotnik). Brittany Maynard was a young woman who found out she had a terminal brain cancer and ended up becoming the public face for the right to die act. Many people believe that this act should not be in place, but in taking this act away people lose their right to choose when they want to die. People may argue the fact that doctors have access the drug with assisted suicide is very unsettling; however, the doctors are professionals who are trusted with this drug. This act is important because it gives the terminally ill one last independent decision before they lose themselves. Taking away the act means taking their free will away from them.
Just like Mercy Hospital, if no attention had been put on Doctor street in a racial way then there would have been no reason in explaining the roots of the name. Just like Mercy Hospital, if the street was like any other street in the community then no one would have thought twice about it and there for the story would have kept moving along as if nothing were different. The story behind Doctor Street immediately magnifies the impact the theme race has in the book Song of Solomon. Southside, Mercy Hospital, and Doctor Street are all prominent figures of racial elements that can be seen in the community. If these elements did not exist then the race problems in the book would not have been as much of a prominent factor as they are. Race in the community is a big influencing factor in how the plot lays out.
In conclusion, Person introduces two conflicting opinions of the main message, medical ethics. However, there is a bias towards Jenna’s initial view, and the opinions of Lily and Alleys. Overall, the author uses this book as a way of showing us the ever-more relevant debate of medical ethics, but wants us to make our own decision of what view to
Is the role of a medical professional to ensure the health and comfort of their patients, or to help them end their lives? Since Dr. Kevorkian assisted in the suicide of Janet Adkins in 1990, physician-assisted suicide (PAS) has been one of the most controversial issues in the medical field today. While some view it as an individual right, others view it as an unethical issue that goes against medical ethics and religious values. Mr. H. M. is an elderly man who is diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and no chance of improvement. After excruciating pain and suffering, he has decided to request physician-assisted death in his home state of Oregon. Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act (DDA) states that terminally ill patients are allowed to use