The Principle Of Respect For Patient Autonomy Essay

We are culturally ingrained from an early age that life is precious and each day is a gift. Life should not be squandered but preserved.  We are encouraged to live with a purpose, cherish our loved ones and live life to its fullest. But what if life becomes too physically painful to endure, often experienced by many terminally ill patients suffering an incurable disease, or a chronically ill elderly person who lacks the ability to thrive?  For forty-five day’s I watched my chronically ill mother languish away in a hospice care facility. The experience was emotionally and financially draining, and I began questioning whether a person should have the right to choose when and how to end their life. In the United States, assisted dying is a widely debated and passionate issue. Opponents argue preserving life, regardless of how much a person is suffering, is an ethical and moral responsibility, determined only by a higher power.  At the other end of the spectrum are those who support a person’s right to end their life with dignity at a time of their choosing.   Wouldn’t my mother’s suffering been greatly reduced if her doctor was legally and ethically permitted to administer a lethal cocktail of drugs to end her life quickly and painlessly? Wouldn’t the prevailing memory of my mother see her in a better light instead of helplessly watching her undignified death? To deny terminal and chronically ill people the freedom to end their

.“As medical technology continues to advance and health care choices become more complicated, the preservation of end-of-life autonomy is an increasingly important issue faced by various client populations.” (Galambos, 1998).

In today's society, one of the most controversial issues is physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Many people feel that it is wrong for people, regardless of their health condition, to ask their health care provider to end their life; while others feel it is their right to be able to choose how and when they die. When a physician is asked to help a patient into death, they have many responsibilities that come along with that single question. Among those responsibilities are: providing valid information as to the terminal illness the patient is suffering, educating the patient as to what their final options may be, making the decision of whether or not to help the patient into death, and also if they do decide to help,

Similar to Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, I do believe there should be a policy with relevant criteria that best describes how to respond to patients needs and to protect vulnerable people in regards to PAS. To respect others’ autonomy or right to self-determination is to treat them as individuals having the abilities required to be rational decision makers, capable of identifying their own interests and making their own reflective choices. At the end of the day, patients should have the right to autonomous decision-making to determine for themselves what will be done to their bodies.

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

Suffering at the end of life stems from multiple sources, including unyielding pain, depression, loss of personal identity, loss of control and dignity, fear of death, and/or fear of being a burden on others (AAHPM, 2007). The overwhelming symptoms lead many terminally ill patients to ask their doctors to help them die (Gorman, 2015). According to Dr. R. Sean Morrison, professor of geriatrics and palliative care medicine at Mt. Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine in New York, “their choice shouldn’t be an assisted death or living with intractable suffering” (as cited in Gorman, 2015). The American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM) (2007) strongly recommends that medical practitioners

In our country the premise of physician assisted death conjures images of suicidal madmen, hell bent on death and mayhem. The reality is, that could not be farther from the truth. So why is there a stigma on assisting patients with taking their own life? Others look at this as a dignified means to those suffering a terrible fate. There are many issues that weight heavy on the difference between physician assisted and vs. natural death. Is it cruel to let a terminal ill patient who will suffer horrendously until nature take its course? Would it be more humane to allow a patient to pass peacefully without the suffering or enduring painful end? This report will examine physician assisted death

In majority of the cases where patients requested help with their demise, the diagnoses included cancer, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and various neurological diseases. The article states further that primary patient concerns, while typically nonphysical, included being a burden on their families and caregivers, loss of control of physical and mental capacities to function, being reliant on others for personal, private care, and diminished self-esteem and dignity. The chief conclusions drawn from this study include that most individuals requesting life-ending prescriptions from their physicians are doing so with primarily intangible, nonphysical worries in mind. Perhaps more surprisingly, most physicians do not consult their work-associates regularly about these appeals. Without guidance from other physicians and regulations verified by higher authorities, there is reason to question how doctors are able to guarantee both quality and equality in the assessment of patient appeals for physician-assisted suicide. This article both stresses the desire for dignified death by individuals suffering from terminal illnesses and the importance of having the practice regulated to protect both patients and physicians

Choosing the Physician Assisted Death is a basic right to terminally-ill, it’s an autonomy for dying, and it’s a way to end their misery as well as end the sorrow and grief of their

The healthcare system is complex with nearly every decision made posing an ethical dilemma for patients, providers, and healthcare leaders. With an influx of new medical knowledge from evidence based practices and new technologies more decisions are being made available to patients and families. Terminally ill patients for instance are faced with numerous options when it comes to treatment including whether or not they end their life by terminating treatment altogether or seek controversial options such as Physician’s Assisted Suicide. The topic of Physician’s Assisted Suicide or (PAS) is very intricate with numerous pros and cons, moral ethics, and ways to address the issue within the healthcare practice.

Determining the value of one’s life is purely subjective and can only be done on an individual basis, therefore prohibiting terminal patients from considering a death with dignity is an unfair extension of pain and suffering. Physician assisted death should be regulated so that all qualifying patients will have the opportunity to die with dignity if they so wish.

Countries around the world realize the benefits to legalizing physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. The Guardian provides an article about five countries and their stance on the controversial idea stating which of the five legalized this option along with the restrictions required before providing the dosage of lethal drugs. The Netherlands became the first country to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide; shortly after, Belgium followed. From there on,

Opponents of this practice feel that patients may be too ill or worried that they will not be able to think through to exercise a real inform consent. The legality of physician-assisted suicide may interfere with good physician-patient relationship. Patients may feel that if their physician is willing to participate in the act, then, society and the doctor would prefer that death occur. This misunderstanding may further imply that the terminally ill people are expected to end their lives. Besides, the legalization of physician-assisted suicide increases the likelihood that death will become acceptable for other people such as the mentally disable, the physically challenged, and the elderly (Weiss & Lonnquist,

Dying on your own terms is a very controversial topic. It seems that both sides of the argument feel very strongly about their position. In this paper, I will argue that physician assisted suicide should be an available and accessible option for patients that are opting to end their lives on their own terms. Choosing to utilize physician assisted suicide can decrease pain and suffering, allow a person to die with dignity and independence by not feeling that they are becoming a burden on their family, and prevent a person from dying alone. Some of the reasons people are against physician assisted suicide include their personal religious beliefs and the fear that it may get out of hand and target certain people in society, including being used on people with disabilities or certain races.

The patient voluntarily wanted to end his life because he was suffering from Lou Gehrigs’s disease (Siu, 2008). Since then, the controversy over active euthanasia has remained an ethical dilemma for healthcare providers, patients and their family members in America and the rest of the world. The general public’s belief is that, health-care providers have professional obligations to save the lives of their patients regardless of their health status. The majority of the public feels that, healthcare workers’ involvement in the euthanasia practice is a betrayal of the “do no harm” oath. When a healthcare worker is involved in either active or passive euthanasia, it can be viewed as a disregard to this value. However, the proponents for euthanasia claim that a physician turning down a suffering patient’s request to end their life is also a violation to the “do no harm” oath (Siu, 2008). The right to die falls under patient’s autonomy and the basic question is whether individuals should be allowed to end their lives if they choose to do so (Sanders & Chaloner 2007). Those in the healthcare sector grapple with this notion on a daily bases because they have to practice under the codes of ethics guidelines. Nurses and doctors should be cautious in their practice as they balance the patient’s autonomy and their professional ethics and guidelines. Sanders & Chaloner (2007) pointed out that nurses and doctors know that a patient's autonomy