When Living Is A Fate Worse Than Death Essay

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.

possible choice that a person who is suffering from an incurable disease might have to make.

It was not intended to make readers sad or necessarily agree with his decision, however, to examine their own life and situation and to contemplate death, as it is inevitable for everyone. Most people are bound to have to face a similar choice as Clendinen. Maybe not in the same extreme measure, but most people will have to make a decision for a family member who is no longer capable of making medical decisions for themselves. Clendinen achieved his purpose and readers should walk away from this article recognizing exactly what Clendinen’s beliefs are on death, and it ought to make them curious about their own thoughts and beliefs. At the very least, talk with their loved one’s before they ever become ill and find out their loved one’s wishes. Most people are skilled on how to live their life, but how many are taught to embrace the

If a child is born with a horrible disease and the only way to survive is to have an operation, which will in a sense allow the child to live, but under poor conditions, the parents have a difficult decision to make. It might be very easy to think about themselves and how raising this child would perhaps be a burden to them or a burden to society. Once again in order for euthanasia to be morally permissible they have to make to decision based on what is good for the child. This is where another crucial point comes into play. Who is to say that even though this child will grow up with severe abnormalities and discomfort that they won't find happiness? "There are many fairly severely handicapped people for whom a simple affectionate life is possible." (Foot, p.795) As you can see, the decision of ending a person's life is a very delicate and hard decision. It is however, a decision we are only allowed to make if it is passive euthanasia being considered. As of right now, active euthanasia is not permissible. We now need to discuss what would happen if active euthanasia were permissible.

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

Although some could argue that the children are still alive, if they are unable to talk or doing anything else then they really have no life, they cannot do anything on their own, it is very likely that they cannot even talk or eat. They will not be missing out on anything that life has to offer by remaining alive considering that they cannot do anything at all in the state they are in. Others might call this murder but again, these children are doing nothing but suffering and to keep them alive would be a disservice to them and their parents. I am not saying that they do not deserve to be alive because I think everyone has a right to live, but if that life is going to be full of nothing but pain and suffering then there is just no point in living. The pain that these children feel will not go away and their suffering will not diminish by magic, the only option for them to be relived is to die. There could be many objections to this claim, like someone could argue that it is so wrong for someone to want their children to die but I do not think anyone could truly understand the pain and suffering that they go through as parents watching their children go through these terrible experiences and also losing everything that they have. I may not understand what they are going through but I can sympathize for them, and anyone else who has a child with a debilitating disease similar or not to muscular dystrophy will be able to understand what they are going through and they may even agree that ending the suffering of the children is the best thing for

It sad to think that there are people who give such advice to parents of young children. Just because the parent’s happiness is suffering, does not mean that euthanasia is the answer. The rights of the child’s right to live should be considered way before the parent’s “right” to

“An ethical dilemma exists when a choice has to be made in which the consequences may have a potential positive or negative outcome.”("Topic 4: Contemporary Ethical Dilemmas (How do managers evaluate beginning-of-life dilemmas?). ", n.d.) The given scenario presents a patient named Jamilah Shah, who is of Turkish descent, 90 years old and collapsed at the side of her bed in the extended care facility in which she resides. The patient suffers from Chronic Pulmonary disease and diabetes mellitus. The patient was rushed to the ER were the EKG and lab tests revealed she suffered a heart attack and she was started on anticoagulants. The patient has no advance directives and a communication barrier exists, the ER department contacts the emergency contact, one of the patient 's sons Bashir. The patient 's family arrives at the hospital and her son states that he makes the decisions and the wants a do not resuscitate order for his mother and no medical intervention other than comfort care. The social worker handling Jamilahs case is concerned by her family 's lack of support and that the family 's wishes are at odds with the patient 's request for help and her expressed desire to live. Furthermore if the patient does not receive a cardiac catheterization or is considered for a coronary bypass, she will surely die.

After reading the article, “ Should Terminally Ill Children Have the Right to Ask For Their Own Death?”, children should not have the right to choose their death. One reason is that a child 's brain isn’t much like an adults, their brains aren’t as developed. Therefore, they can’t comprehend death. The article argues, “ Minors may not have the mental capacity or vocabulary to request death”(Trianni). For example, a nurse says , “ I never had a child asking to end his life,” children indeed say , “ It’s really hard’ or “I’m fed up”(Trianni). Meaning, children aren’t tired of living their simply tired of their situation. The article also points out children may be the ones requesting death but ultimately they shouldn 't and won’t be the ones making the decisions. Children shouldn’t be the ones to decide their own death date.

The underlying issue, in this case, is what Charlie’s parents wanted and what was in the best interests of Charlie. We have an issue of autonomy, or “a person’s rational capacity for self-governance” (Vaughn, 2017, p. 81), for both the parents and child. Charlie’s parents wanted to try every possible treatment even though, at a certain point, continuing to treat Charlie would no longer do anything for him. This involves several moral values, including the responsibility of the parents to make decisions about their child’s treatment and the responsibility of the doctors to do what is best for Charlie. Charlie’s MDDS is incurable, and at the time of his diagnosis, there were no approved treatments for the disorder. He was getting progressively worse and was being kept alive by the use of a ventilator after suffering from a seizure that caused brain damage. At this point, the hospital deemed Charlie’s treatment to be futile and they decided to stop his treatment. Their decision to stop treatment was

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.

As an administrator I would need to take into consideration the patient’s autonomy, autonomy is recognizing an individual’s right to make his/her own decisions about what is best for them regarding their health care (Pozgar, 2012). The patient’s rights always should be considered before any decisions are made by any other family members. In this scenario it is clear that the patient is unable to make any decisions, the patient has suffered a serious brain damage, and although it is not complete brain death, we must determine how to proceed.

The best possible resolution for this case would be to, first, to identify what Andrea would want to do for her end of life care. When her condition was deteriorating but before the cardiac arrest, the parents, social workers, nurses, and the physician should assess Andrea’s pain and suffering, asking her to express what she thinks she would want in the end. Harrison et al. (1997) supports this argument, claiming, “Parents and physicians should not exclude children and adolescents from decision making without persuasive reasons.” “Physicians should ensure that good decisions are made on behalf of their child patients” (as in Boetzkes & Waluchow, 2000, p. 163). It was also argued that, children of primary-school age, like Andrea, can participate in medical decisions, indicating their

1. Doctors could possibly save your child from future pain, but only if this procedure becomes ethical and moral.

We are all aware of death, and we know it will come to us all. To many of us death brings a chill down our spine ridden with fear, but to others it is ridden with strength and satisfaction of accomplishment. Fortunately or unfortunately we are all condemned to death. However no one knows when exactly the inevitable will approach, but we all know it is inescapable. But what makes death seem more realistic to us and those in denial of it is the lucid pictures of people suffering, in pain and those on their death bed before many of us can be rationale and accept the truth. Someone once said, “Life is about 50-70 years of pain. One is born through the mother’s pain and die leaving others in pain.'; How do we accept and