Aid In Dying
decisions pertaining to their end of life care and death. As stated previously, the practice of physician aid-in-dying is illegal in majority of the United States, but it likely is it still happening behind closed doors. If this practices was legalized in more states or the United States as whole, it could potentially advance and expand end-of-life care and treatment options and it would allow for physicians to discuss this practice openly.
Although there are valid reasons to believe the practice of physician aid-in-dying is ethical, it is justified as unethical because it contradicts what the physician’s role should be. Physicians are responsible for preserving patients’ lives without causing harm. Physicians are ideally viewed as the person …show more content…
The ethical issues that arise for ones that are for life-sustaining treatment are potential recovery, sanctity of life, personal request, and professional physician integrity. Although there are often minimal benefits seen with the use of extreme measures to prolong life, the potential recovery is valid reason for patients to continue with life-sustaining treatment. The sanctity of life, which is the belief that people are made in the image of God and their lives are sacred and should be protected and respected at all time, is dependent upon the patient. Patients’ values and beliefs may differ, but if the patient has a “low quality” of life and still believes that their life is sacred, then the ethically correct decision is to continue with life-sustaining treatment. As mentioned previously, due to laws that have been created, patients have the right to choose the care and treatment that is provided to them near the end of life. Therefore, it is seen as unethical if anything or anyone takes that decision away from the patient, which again calls into question professional physician integrity. A physician is reliable for providing exceptional care to the patient and attending to the …show more content…
Beneficence focuses on justifying the continuation of treatment by weighting out the positive outcomes with the potential risks and the costs that could come with it. These potential risks and costs include the expenses used on treatment, care, facilities, etc. and also the pain and suffering placed upon patients and their families as they go through the process of extending life. The use of extreme measures is essentially prolonging the inevitable and using such treatments just adds stress and pain to those effected, directly or indirectly, by the treatments. Non-maleficence becomes an ethical issue because it is the physician’s duty to avoid causing harm to the patient. Assisting a patient to prolong their life can be seen as causing harm because many life-sustaining treatments involve painful procedures and physicians may be prolonging patients’ suffering instead of putting them out of their misery and letting them die peacefully. It is important for a physician to have the ability to sympathize and display compassion. By helping patients die peacefully without the use of life-sustaining treatments, physicians are showing compassion and taking patients’ emotions into account. Physicians may not be demonstrating their defined role as a physician to do everything in
Although there are valid reasons to believe the practice of physician aid-in-dying is ethical, it is justified as unethical because it contradicts what the physician’s role should be. Physicians are responsible for preserving patients’ lives without causing harm. Physicians are ideally viewed as the person …show more content…
The ethical issues that arise for ones that are for life-sustaining treatment are potential recovery, sanctity of life, personal request, and professional physician integrity. Although there are often minimal benefits seen with the use of extreme measures to prolong life, the potential recovery is valid reason for patients to continue with life-sustaining treatment. The sanctity of life, which is the belief that people are made in the image of God and their lives are sacred and should be protected and respected at all time, is dependent upon the patient. Patients’ values and beliefs may differ, but if the patient has a “low quality” of life and still believes that their life is sacred, then the ethically correct decision is to continue with life-sustaining treatment. As mentioned previously, due to laws that have been created, patients have the right to choose the care and treatment that is provided to them near the end of life. Therefore, it is seen as unethical if anything or anyone takes that decision away from the patient, which again calls into question professional physician integrity. A physician is reliable for providing exceptional care to the patient and attending to the …show more content…
Beneficence focuses on justifying the continuation of treatment by weighting out the positive outcomes with the potential risks and the costs that could come with it. These potential risks and costs include the expenses used on treatment, care, facilities, etc. and also the pain and suffering placed upon patients and their families as they go through the process of extending life. The use of extreme measures is essentially prolonging the inevitable and using such treatments just adds stress and pain to those effected, directly or indirectly, by the treatments. Non-maleficence becomes an ethical issue because it is the physician’s duty to avoid causing harm to the patient. Assisting a patient to prolong their life can be seen as causing harm because many life-sustaining treatments involve painful procedures and physicians may be prolonging patients’ suffering instead of putting them out of their misery and letting them die peacefully. It is important for a physician to have the ability to sympathize and display compassion. By helping patients die peacefully without the use of life-sustaining treatments, physicians are showing compassion and taking patients’ emotions into account. Physicians may not be demonstrating their defined role as a physician to do everything in