Wednesday, January 23, 2019

Analysis of an Ethical Dilemma Essay

One truly debatable ethical dilemma in todays association is mercy killing. mercy killing, equivalent any some other medical checkup treatment should be seen as a choice. As a society, in that respect atomic number 18 obligations to the sick that should be up held, but morally and well-groundedly whitethorn non be supportable. in that location atomic number 18 many aspects that go with this choice be looks the obligation. on that point are also stakeholders to bring as well as companionable values, morals and religious implications. Euthanasia is Greek for salutary death which translates into slope as easy death or mercy killing. It was accepted by the ancient Greeks and Romans. Three Asian religious traditions accept mercy killing Buddhism, Shintoism, and Confucianism. It was rejected by the 3 chief(prenominal) monotheistic religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam. It has its supporters and opp adeptnts in all countries. ii types of diligent role ofs are inv olved in euthanasia (a) a affected role in a persistent vegetative state who is awake but is not aware of self or the environment.Such a patient has no higher brain functions and is kept alive on artificial breeding support (b) patient in death illness with a chain reactor of pain, psychological agony and loss of dignity. The patient whitethorn or may not be on liveliness support. There are polar types of euthanasia. Active euthanasia, an act of commission, is taking some action that leads to death comparable a fatal injection. inactive euthanasia, an act of omission, is letting a somebody die by taking no action to main(prenominal)tain lifespan. Passive euthanasia tail be withholding or withdrawing water, food, drugs, medical or surgical procedures, resuscitation like CPR, and life support such as the respirator. The patient is then left to die from the underlying disease. Sometimes a billet is do between normal nutrition and hydration on one give-up the ghost and m edical nutritional support involving intravenous and naso-gastric feeding on the other hand. Euthanasia can be by the patient or by the wellness circumspection giver. Euthanasia can be voluntary when the patient takes the decision, non-voluntary when the decision is made by another person for an unconscious patient and involuntary when the decision is made contrary to the patients wish.There are ethical implications of European and American arguments for and against euthanasia. dickens arguments are made for active euthanasia (a) mercy killing because of pain, psychological and physical suffering (b) the utilitarian argument is that euthanasia is desirable because it re lie downves the misery of the terminally ill. Two arguments are made against active euthanasia (a) killing is morally upon and is forbidden by religion (b) unexpected cures or procedures may be discovered to reverse the terminal condition. Nurses are the gatekeepers of the healing facility, although they may postulate their own outlooks based on their own ethical, cultural, and religious views (LeBaron, 2010). There are always value conflicts when it comes to euthanasia, which can be demonstrated by examining utilitarianism and rights. The treat practice should be to keep patients alive, do no harm, do everything mathematical to save the life, and do good to everyone by respecting the right or self-sufficiency of the various(prenominal) patient.Although most of Americans presently cypher that physician-assisted suicide should be legal and no existing federal laws prohibiting the practice of euthanasia in join States, voluntary/assisted euthanasia is yet considered illegal and killing in all of the States but in Oregon, Washington, and soon Montana (Webster, 2009). First, Oregon and latterly Washington passed a Death with haughtiness Act and are in reality the only places where euthanasia in terminally ill patients is legally and openly authorized (Blizzard, 2012). In 2009s Baxt er v. Montana case, the Montana Supreme act declared that no law in state constitution sugar patients from practicing voluntary/assisted euthanasia (OReilley, 2010). Any time the legislature can act to join Oregon and Washington in the public arena. check to both States laws, an adult competent patient essential address tercet witnessed solicitations, two verbally and one in writing, to his/her att destinationing physician for a fatal medication. Then the patient administers the dose on her/ his own.Obviously, the Death with Dignity Act unambiguously bans assisted euthanasia that obliges another person than the patient to take part in administering the medication (Exit International Australia, 2012). As euthanasia is observed from a diversity of different perspective, the stake holders opinions are considered. In front comes the patient who wishes and requests to discontinue her/his life in respect to compassionate right to select the time and manner of death when she/ he is t erminal ill by stopping unwanted, burdensome and/or futile medical treatment. Other sight entrusted with the euthanasia dilemma take on physicians/health assistance professionals, the family, indemnity companies, religious groups, and the government. The second stakeholder is families that hurt to admit and follow the desires of their loved one to die in nobility. The involvement in this kind of decision may be an unbearable load for some families who would be would be either not ready to let their darling one go, which could generate a catch-22 mainly if they are bending patients wishes, or emotionally scarred by the death.Other stakeholders in this situation are physicians and other practitioners who might come across a real impasse because the euthanasia breaches the do no harm Hippocratic Oath. The insurance companies may get down the patient in opting for death to conserve the money on an individual(a) who does not hope of staying alive. Some religious groups are aga inst euthanasia and consider it a suicide. Lastly the government intervenes in the stake holder in this state of affairs in defensive position for citizen from illegal measures. spontaneous/assisted euthanasia is an ethical dilemma, and creates issues and disagreements amongst those involved (Gore, 2012). Netherland and Belgium are the two countries in the world to legalize euthanasia. In the US, Oregon and Washington also legalized euthanasia. The main barriers to legalize euthanasia are the government, religion, fear, education and the media. More religious large number are against euthanasia.Education also plays a major role in euthanasia. The more education a person has he/she believes all individuals halt the right to autonomy and therefore the person has the right to decide to end their life. Euthanasia has pros and cons. Pros include relief from pain, relief from low quality or vegetative state of life, relief from financial strain on health care system and the resources c an be used for other people. The cons include family members can kill another family member if they dont like them or reduce financial burden, loss of respect of human life and according to religious view God can only subscribe to when to end life. In Euthanasia legalized countries, such as palliative care nurses in Belgium have important roles and responsibilities in working with euthanasia bespeak by patients and their families. The nurse involvement starts when the patient requests to euthanasia and ends by financial backing family and loved ones.They are in key positions to provide valuable care to the patient and family. Nurses assist the health care team after the life threatening procedure. Pain management and comfort care are their main goals at that time. Nurses are open-minded and have unique relationships with the patient and family. In the twentieth century, a number of social and technological changes made euthanasia a morally acceptable choice to growing numbers of people (Wells, 2006). There are two types of ethical theories that are going to be focused on. The first is utilitarianism, which is an action that is morally correct if its consequence is good for the greatest numbers. It generally focuses on the greatest good for the greatest number, and neglects the individual rights. The other theory is called deontology, which takes into consideration the way something is to be done and not just on the consequences of that action. One may tell a lie to the doctor, just to save a friend but doesnt think of the grave consequences they have to suffer later on.A person reservation a voluntary euthanasia uses the utilitarianism theory when making such a conceit. One might choose to voluntarily do euthanasia if the person has reached an all-time low and the only other option is to the act. The person has to have thoroughly thought about the consequences and make sure his or her judgment is not biased or is not taken personal. There are certain conditions that apply for one to request voluntary euthanasia. Conditions are an unlikelihood of recovering from a cure, suffering from a terminal illness, and most importantly, they must have a voluntary wish to die. As can be seen by the multiple views of the authors, euthanasia is not an easy topic to side on. Due to many religious beliefs, one may feel euthanasia is wrong. But as a nurse that sees suffering every day, this kindred person would support euthanasia if not condemned by his/her religion. With the support of the do no harm belief, it can also be construed that assisting in euthanasia is not doing harm, but preventing harm for those with chronic severe pain. There is no nationwide movement for the majority of the states to legislate for euthanasia, but thankfully there are two, soon to be three compassionate states that have in-acted this law.ReferencesBlizzard, R. (2002). justifiedly to die or dead to rights? Retrieved from http//www.gallup.com/poll/6265/Right-Die- Dead-Rights.aspx?version=print Euthanasia The nurses role (2011). Issues in nursing. Retrieved on 10/3/12 from treat students 417.wordpress.comExit International Australia (2012). Death with Dignity in Oregon (soon to be Montana. Retrieved from http//www.exitinternational.net/page/USA Gore, J. (2011) Stakeholders in Euthanasia. Retrieved fromhttp//jacktgore.edublogs.org/2011/08/03/stakeholders-in-euthanasia/ LeBaron Jr, G. (2010). The ethics of euthanasia. Retrieved October 3, 2012, from http//www.quantonics.com/The_Ethics_of_Euthanasia_By_Garn_LeBaron.html Purtilo, R., & Doherty, R. (2011). Ethical dimensions in the health professions (5th ed.). St. Louis, MO Elsevier. Task Force on the Nurses Role in End-of-Life Decisions, 2011. (2011). Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 8(1). Webster, B. (2009). aided Suicide/Voluntary Euthanasia. International debate education association. UK. Retrieved from http//www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_print.php?topicID=55 Wells, K. R., Fr ey, R. (2006). The gale encyclopedia of nursing and allied health ed. In J. L. LONGE (Ed.), (2 ed., Vol. 2, pp. 993-996). DETROIT, GALE

No comments:

Post a Comment